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."

Comments

OfCOM

[SimonTheSoundMan]

I just can't wait for OfCOM to get their hands on Apple when the iPhone launches in the UK. I know I will be the first to complete a complaints for to them on the day of the release.

Re:OfCOM

[Elliot_Lin]

Yeah, I'm sure they'll have something to say about lock in.

Re:OfCOM

[RDW]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in other EU countries where unlocking must legally be provided on request, or where it's banned altogether, e.g.:

http://www.unlockiphone.info/2007/07/iphones-in-france-law-says-they-must-be.html

Will Apple be prepared to allow unlocked phones in these countries (presumably leading to a free European market in officially unlocked phones), or will they choose to lose sales and not sell where they can't enforce a lockdown and get the revenue that goes with it?

Re:OfCOM

[R.D.Olivaw]

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.

Re:OfCOM

[Stevecrox]

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.

Re:OfCOM

[RDW]

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

Re:OfCOM

[GPL Apostate]

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.

It sounds like the sales staff are active advocates for the needs of the customer, like they listen to what the customer needs and earn their salary by tailoring a package to meet those needs.

That isn't allowed in the U.S. No Sales Manager would allow such a salesperson out on their retail floor. Here 'sales' is about maximizing return to the retail establishment at whatever expense. The customer is treated like a consumable.

Re:OfCOM

[maxwell demon]

Well, if the contract is made so that most of the profit comes from the monthly fee, then you getting the contract but not using it is still a great deal for the provider. I guess in countries where unlocking support is mandatory, the contracts will reflect the possibility to unlock the phone.

Re:OfCOM

[MoonBuggy]

But why didn't they do that in the US, I wonder?

Re:OfCOM

[RDW]

Yes, but if the above interpretation of the Belgian law is correct, the purchaser will have the option of buying an unlocked phone without any contract, and then just shopping around for the best GSM deal, so there'd be no link between the service provider and Apple, and no reason to hike the price beyond what the market will bear (just as with every other phone).

Re:OfCOM

[xaxa]

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.

Re:OfCOM

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok, but can we have our jet engine back? (And the programmable computer).

Re:OfCOM

[maxwell demon]

Is there also a law that an unlocked phone must be cheaper than a locked phone plus contract?

Re:OfCOM

[Anonymous Coward]

how about we keep them, train some orthodontists for you and call it even.

Re:OfCOM

[torako]

I wonder if Apple could get away with using a lock that restricts the phone to only accept SIMs from a specific country. This way they could sell phones that would behave like an unlocked phone, say, in Belgium, where they have to be unlocked by law, but still prohibit the use of foreign SIMs which would prevent phones being exported to other countries like the US.

Re:OfCOM

[mark-t]

I expect what Apple will do in such markets is to price the iPhone about considerably higher, and sell those phones through companies which sell cell phone plans... so that if you sign up for a certain length of plan (3 years or maybe 5 years or so), then you would receive a certain amount of credit toward the purchase of certain models of phones that they sell, _including_ the iPhone. Of course, not every company is obligated to offer credit towards the purchase of every model of cell phone made, so people who want to use cell networks with which Apple doesn't have any affiliations would end up having to pay a lot more for their iPhone.

Re:OfCOM

[m2943]

One of the reasons for having unlocked phones is precisely that people can buy cheap sim cards when they travel and thereby create some competition.

So, I think "unlocked" means "unlocked".

Re:OfCOM

[RDW]

Going by the linked postings, there probably is such a law if you try to sell both in the same (Belgian) market - the contract package would fall foul of the 'cross-marketing' law since the phone would clearly be subsidised. You could offer the phone alone at a notional 'phone + contract' price, but this would price even Apple out of the market. More reasonably, you could probably sell the phone alone at a modestly increased price compared to other markets to cover the loss of revenue from the lack of contract lock-in (if this sort of deal were available where I live, I'd probably buy one).

Re:OfCOM

[CoolVC]

You don't need a contract to buy an iPhone. You can buy as many of them as you want for the regular price. Using it requires activation, which requires a 2-year contract. Once activated the phone is locked to that one sim card, and will not work with any others.

Re:OfCOM

[lattyware]

Actually, if you want the savior debt, we are just middlemen, you want to go to France for that one.

Re:OfCOM

[RDW]

I don't think this fine distinction will be sufficient to evade strong consumer protection laws in countries that have them. In practice, you're buying a brick until you sign up with the monopoly service provider. Not requiring sign up at the point of sale isn't fooling anyone.

Re:OfCOM

[MindStalker]

The iPhone price is not subsidized the reason its locked to AT&T is because AT&T had to enhance their network to support it and they demanded a tie in for that.

Re:OfCOM

[Wowsers]

For international readers, OfCOM also is known as OfCON - the office that doesn't like to investigate too hard into anything and let's big business get away with anything.

Re:OfCOM

[RDW]

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.

Re:OfCOM

[SimonTheSoundMan]

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)".

Re:OfCOM

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OfCOM

[Miseph]

Repeat customers? How cute. We don't care about that here, because we find it more effective to bilk everyone out of every last cent and then submerge all competition in a flood of shit so as to give our angry disgruntled consumers no choice but to go through the exact same experience again next time.

Re:OfCOM

[drsquare]

Why is it that every single thread about American businesses not having their own way in Europe ends up with comments like this? Is it a prick to the American ego that your beloved mega-corporations can't steamroll over the rest of the world like they can in the US?

Re:OfCOM

[TheRaven64]

That would dramatically reduce the value of the phone. One of the nice benefits of an unlocked phone is that you can just pick up a cheap pre-pay SIM wherever you go and make cheap calls, without paying roaming fees. You get a different number for each country, which is a slight hassle, but when you're using the phone to talk to other people in the same country it works out a lot cheaper.

Re:OfCOM

[TheRaven64]

My experience with the local O2 store was that they were helpful, but couldn't do much because of the stupid rules that O2 had at the time. When they were working out how good a phone you could get with a contract, they only factored in the base payment amount, not the total. That mean that if I wanted a cheap voice package, with an expensive (over 70% of the final price) data bundle, I could not get any of the phones that would have actually allowed me to make use of the data facility, although I could have done if I'd gone with a more expensive voice plan and a cheaper data plan (and paid the same amount or less in total per month).

Re:OfCOM

[ijakings]

Better yet, can we have our Country back?

Re:OfCOM

[foobsr]

"The Brits may have beaten the Americans, but it seems we were both pipped by the Germans. No, not football. Computers.

Colossus was not, in fact, the world's first programmable computer: that particular distinction belongs to the Z3, built in 1941 by Konrad Zuse, a German civil engineer."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/02/zuse_computer/

Now who was financing Hitler for what reasons?

CC.

Re:OfCOM

[firewood]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in other EU countries where unlocking must legally be provided on request, or where it's banned altogether...

Does Apple actually offer the iPhone for sale in these EU countries? If not, then it may be the person who imported the phone to the EU country who's on the hook, not Apple.

Re:OfCOM

[RDW]

A PAYG iPhone would be a pretty attractive proposition for quite a lot of people. UK PAYG tariffs allow free incoming calls and typically have non-expiring credits and a nominal (if any) sign-up charge for the SIM, so anyone using an iPhone mainly for the wifi and iPod features but needing light cellular access could find this ideal. If this turns out to be readily available without commitment to a non-PAYG contract, the UK iPod Touch may well sink without trace!

Re:OfCOM

[architimmy]

I think the Germans had the first jet engine (at least the first one to be used in flight, Hans von Ohain). Damn Germans are always second to the party but so efficient they're always first out the door.

Sounds like you Brits will have to find something else for us to give back. Maybe disc brakes or the steam engine? Personally, I think you've done enough with taking Madonna off our hands.

Re:OfCOM

[Oktober Sunset]

oh you colonials do make me laugh, now go back to crying like a baby in fear of a few scruffy men with turbans.

Re:OfCOM

[Oktober Sunset]

and don't forget that you yanks already owe the French one for saving your sorry arses from us.

Re:OfCOM

[v1]

It's very possible the iphone does not cost the what, $1200 people are estimating, to manufacture, and that apple is simply making a ridiculous killing on proffit right now with the lock-in. In other words, they want the lock, but don't NEED it to turn a buck.

Re:OfCOM

[mclaincausey]

I was going to watch this movie, but when I pored over the sources, I saw things like Jim Marrs: Rule By Secrecy referenced. This is a patently ridiculous tome where he regurgitates as fact the words of discredited loons. David Icke too? Yuck. Glad to see Bill Hicks though.

Re:OfCOM

[mikael]

You get that with 3G wireless cards too. I was looking to see if there was a pay-as-you-go service, for the times when I am working away from work or the office. But all they seem to offer are tiered tariff rates, where you can either buy the wireless card cheap, and have a low data cap, (10 Megabtes/month) or buy the wireless card expensive and have a high data cap (1 Gigabyte/month). In all cases, it's a 12 or 18 month contract.

Re:OfCOM

[PorkNutz]

I work retail part time. I work at a national chain that has the initials O.D. We are hourly workers so there is no incentive to sell the most expensive item available. There is no commission on the sale of any particular item except extended warranties and add on items. Our stores performance is based on how many add on items and extended warranties we can sell. These items have a much greater markup than the more expensive items we sell, so corporate actually makes more money from selling them. This actually makes it easier to sell the less expensive items which leaves the customer more money to spend on add ons and warranties.

The customers get more than they perhaps expected to, I get commissions on the extras, and the store gets high marks and goodies in return.

Re:OfCOM

[SeaFox]

Is there also a law that an unlocked phone must be cheaper than a locked phone plus contract?

A phone plus contract is cheaper because the phone price is being subsidized by the carrier. Apple/AT&T have stated the iPhone hardware is not subsidized in the U.S., so they would have to justify a huge price increase over the U.S. pricing.

Re:OfCOM

[StarkRG]

Sure, can you get rid of the monopolies we have running our government?

Somehow I doubt it...

Re:OfCOM

[Adult film producer]

The iphone costs $400, right? Can't they make healthy profit selling at that price? They've sold 600 or 700 thousand of the phones already, and many of them at the original price of $600... the development costs have be recouped.. sheesh

Re:OfCOM

[konohitowa]

Please don't confuse the issue with the facts. It takes all of the joy out of country bashing!

Re:OfCOM

[ContractualObligatio]

Such depth of insight! If AT&T did not give them extra money, they would need extra money directly from the customer to make the same profit. Genius! But moving from sarcasm to being direct - your comment shows no insight. Further, profit maximisation is a fundamentally different thing from subsidy. So you've gone from a comment lacking insight to a conclusion lacking logic.

I would guess you're not driven by stupidity, but simply trying to attach a word that can be used in a negative sense (subsidy) to criticise a behaviour you don't like (lock in). Which would be a shame, because there are interesting questions to be asked once you get past the predictable knee-jerk reactions.

For instance, criticism of lock-in was previously aimed at the service providers, not the phone manufacturers. Originally, the economics required a subsidy of manufacturing costs, recovered over the lifetime of the contract. This time it's the phone manufacturer that wants the lock-in, and there's a whole load of free competition amongst phone manufacturers. The economics are profit-maximisation, not subsidising up-front costs. What impact does this have?

Have the laws in EU countries against lock-in been written in such a way as not to apply to the iPhone situation? Can a service provider be held guilty of providing lock-in contracts when they also offer a range of unlocked phones? Can Apple claim that the creation of Visual Voicemail deserves a return in the marketplace? Can a manufacturer aiming at a whole 1% market share be accused of being anti-competitive? When online updates are provided free-of-charge to anywhere with an Internet connection, does the analogy of breaking up the car industry's model of service only through registered dealers apply? Is two years an unreasonable length of contract? Shouldn't the customer be able to decide whether they want Visual Voicemail? Etc.

Re:OfCOM

[porkchop_d_clown]

Do you have the receipt?

Re:OfCOM

[devilspgd]

AT&T might not be subsidizing the phone, but Apple may be selling it at or below cost, recouping the costs with AT&T's kickbacks.

Re:OfCOM

[wealthychef]

Yes, their "enhanced" network causes me nothing but joy over the slow EDGE speeds and the crappy phone quality and the lousy customer service. I really am thinking of going back to the Palm and Verizon, even though switching back would cost a bundle.

About time!

[Tastecicles]

Maybe now I can get my Motorola C975 camera phone unlocked from the 3 network. They locked it, they can unlock the thing. Or give me a new phone that's a: similarly functional to the 975 and b: open to all networks. For no extra charge. And maybe some sort of credit compensation.

Re:About time!

[aliquis]

Locked it later on or from the begining? If it was locked from the begining why did you bought it if you didn't wanted it locked. Sounds kind of stupid.

Re:About time!

[Tastecicles]

1. I needed a phone
2. it was the cheapest in the shop at the time (!! Whatever happened to basic make-and-take-calls phones??)
3. erm. That's all I got.

Re:About time!

[jamar0303]

I feel compelled to say this- Is Japan (ironically) the only country that still has truly basic phones?

Re:About time!

[Tastecicles]

Quite possibly - the last two phones I went for (the first one was a bowing down to the pressure to get a camera phone, that was the 975, the second being sought for its practical foldaway and disappear shape being the V3r) were in fact the cheapest pay-as-you-go phones available at the time. All I wanted a phone for was to make bleedin' calls!

Re:About time!

[aliquis]

I bought my Motorola W220 for 350 sek unlocked (thought then I had switched to another operator to be able to switch back to free 12 months "call everyone else on the same network for free" subscription to get another 300 sek of, so 650 sek, anyway basic phone.)

My Sony Ericsson z300 or whatever it's called was bought for 250 sek used.

We have plenty of basic phones in Sweden.

Re:About time!

[TheRaven64]

I'm intrigued. If you wanted no bells and whistles, why did you go with Three as a network? When I was last shopping for a phone, they seemed to be all about the bells and whistles (although not, sadly, any of the actually useful ones, like reasonably priced data).

Re:About time!

[Tastecicles]

it was the cheapest handset in the shop at that time. Simple as. :)

Stupid lawsuit again...?

[cavac]

If you modify an embedded system in a non-vendor approved way and then install a vendor update and the update brakes cause you did something incompatible.... Then it's your fault, not the vendors...

While i agree that Apple should be forced to sell unlocked phones, modifying a product in a non-approved way DOES invalidate your waranty. Why should the vendor be held reliable if YOU break his software?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[cbunix23]

Exactly. There hasn't been any information as to exactly what the nature of that update from Apple was. All we know is after the update unlocked iPhones were no longer usable after the update was applied. The tech-ignorant media has been suggesting the purpose of the update was to turn unlocked iPhones into iBricks, but there has been no proof of that.

Apple did not release an iPhone SDK or API that could be programmed to. Why should they be held responsible for what happens when iPhone updates break iPhones with arbitrary software on them.

It would be like changing the linux kernel for some special project you are workin on and then complaining that your unapproved changes no longer worked when the next kernel release came along. That's why there are API and SDKs and manual pages. Go beyond them at your peril.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[suv4x4]

Why should the vendor be held reliable if YOU break his software?

Indeed, why?
Let's find out!

*flips out a cell phone and dials his lawyer*

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[BlueParrot]

While i agree that Apple should be forced to sell unlocked phones, modifying a product in a non-approved way DOES invalidate your waranty. Why should the vendor be held reliable if YOU break his software?

a)Apple deliberately made the update brick the phone if third party applications were installed. There is no technical reason for this, other than to prevent people from unlocking their phone. It is not a matter of the customer doing something incompatible, it is a matter of Apple releasing a patch that deliberately destroys the devices of people who have done something they didn't like.

b)While I can agree that they can make their warranty subject to what you do with the phone, this doesn't absolve them from responsibility if there are unrelated defects. As an example, if touch-screen is made from an inferior material and scratches easily, saying "well you modified the software, so tough luck" is not acceptable.

Bad car analogy: If you send your car in for an oil-change and the mechanic notes you have used tieres from a competitor, then it is not acceptable for the mechanic to disable your engine to punish you. Also, if the fuel tank suffers from a design flaw causing it to catch fires in the case of a crash, then saying "you changed the tires, no warranty" is not an acceptable excuse.

Basically this lawyer is throwing up a lot of stuff to see what sticks, in my opinion some of it should.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Umbriel]

First, I agree completely in that broken iPhones is fault of the owners, not Apple.

But why should be Apple forced to sell unlocked phones? If you don't like their offer, then don't buy a locked iPhone. That's free market.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[peragrin]

actually the guys looking at the code are saying that apple did a complete rewrite of the software. Maybe Apple didn't want third party applications because the first version of the software while functional was ugly from an internal standpoint

Think OS X 10.0 versus 10.2 they work the same yet the code itself has been cleaned up.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[speaker of the truth]

Then it's your fault, not the vendors... Unless of course writes code that does nothing EXCEPT break modded phones. It would sort of be like Microsoft detecting you have open office installed on your computer while giving you a patch for Microsoft Word and then bricking your computer.

Now I've seen nothing but insinuations that Apple did this myself. But some lawyer obviously thinks there is a bit more then insinuations. Whether or not he's hoping to confuse the courts or has a good case remains to be seen.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[speaker of the truth]

The truly free market allows me to build clones of the iPhone and sell them with no consideration to patents or copyright. Until we have such a truly free market, businesses like Apple should have to suffer certain restrictions, one of which might be selling unlocked phones.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[janrinok]

Apple deliberately made the update brick the phone if third party applications were installed

How do you know? The upgrade might have had that effect but it might not have been deliberate, but simply the result of trying to apply an update to software that was in an unknown state because it have been modified by the user.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Aqua OS X]

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.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[geminidomino]

Wasn't it announced *ahead of time* that the upgrade would brick unlocked phones?

That sure sounds like premeditation to me.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[ciw42]

I stand to be corrected here, but is there any *actual* evidence (apart from hearsay) that the bricking was deliberate. It seems to me perfectly understandable that if the software and configuration files on the phone aren't exactly as they were shipped, then an update could quite reasonably fail, and as the iPhone isn't a consumer product which allows the user to install new software, then there is no reason for Apple to develop updates which work with anything other than the default software shipped with the unit. It's entirely their baby, and unless the update causes problems on phones with their default install, they're not responsible for any problems you may have.

We're not talking physical materials or workmanship here, we're talking about people changing the software on their phones, and that is something which goes against the terms of Apple's warranty for the product. Your car analogy isn't a particularly good one, as Apple aren't saying they won't repair a phone which has physical faults or non-software related issues. Apple are in no way responsible for the software if it's been modified by the end-user. This is fairly standard stuff in software development/support terms.

Unlocking an iPhone isn't a simple process, and it's not something you'd do accidentally or casually without understanding what you were doing. Anyone unlocking their phone did so on purpose, and knew at the time they were invalidating their warranty. It's made very clear on every single website I've seen which details one of the approaches to doing this. If you got the instructions, then you knew the risks. Simple as. Anyone who's unlocked their iPhone is no longer entitled to support either, as they're not using their iPhone for the purpose for which it was intended.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution?

http://www.openmoko.org/

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[thegnu]

They could have run alpha and beta testing and discovered it the good old fashioned way. (pre-release)

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[sessamoid]

Wasn't it announced *ahead of time* that the upgrade would brick unlocked phones? That sure sounds like premeditation to me.

Complete bullshit. What Apple said was that if you hacked your iPhone, it might be broken by future updates. They also noted that hacking your iPhone would void the warranty. If you hack your DVD player so that it makes coffee in addition to playing DVDs, then try to install a firmware update, are you going to blame the hardware manufacturer when the firmware bricks your DVD player? Same difference.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[uglyduckling]

The tech-ignorant media has been suggesting the purpose of the update was to turn unlocked iPhones into iBricks, but there has been no proof of that.

And how could we go about getting proof... hmmm... maybe... how about a lawsuit? Isn't that what they're for - a group of people have a strong suspicion of foul play and would like to know if it indeed happened as they believe and if there is a legal remedy for it.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Serious Callers Only]

How do you know? The upgrade might have had that effect but it might not have been deliberate, but simply the result of trying to apply an update to software that was in an unknown state because it have been modified by the user.

You're right, it's impossible to say whether the effect of phones being bricked was just a consequence of other changes, or a deliberate punishment for hackers (probably the former, I mean why would they bother with the latter, given all the bad press it was bound to generate).

What *was* deliberate was the encryption of the firmware to lock out third party apps/mods. That's a deliberate step to lock down the phone, as with the touch, not an unintended consequence.

Apple has been using up a lot of karma lately.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[s4ltyd0g]

So If I void my warranty, that gives Apple the right to break my phone?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[MttJocy]

I have yet to see any evidence to prove that the firmware upgrade had the intent to brick devices which had been modified, it is most certainly possible to release a software update for a product which is tested and works fine on the default software but may not be compatible with arbitrary software, especially when that software uses flaws, bugs or undocumented features in order to preform its function, this is not like this software used some kind of API apple provided for the purpose of writing third party software which they failed to ensure the new firmware was backwards compatible with. It seams to me that one is assuming facts not in evidence here and ignoring other realistic possible explanations for what occurred.

If someone begins tampering with things in ways beyond their design specifications then there is always an element of risk involved, the manufacturer sold the device designed for use with software specifically designed and tested for compatibility outside of that they are not responsible for anything that may occur. If anything it was rather foolish of the users who have bricked their phones to install new firmware without first ensuring that their own software modifications were still compatible.

Of course if there is absolute and certain proof that apple took deliberate action to render these devices unusable (like your car analogy) then I would completely agree they were in the wrong. However I don't see any proof of that, only suspicions and assumptions, effect does not prove the intent of an action.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[imstanny]

While I agree that Apple should be forced to sell unlocked phones, modifying a product in a non-approved way DOES invalidate your waranty. Why should the vendor be held reliable if YOU break his software? Like this sentance, the sentance above doesn't contradict itself -- no, wait a minute, yes it does. Why should the vendor be forced to unlock the phone? Just like the policy with warranties, you know full well what product your getting and the terms of service; if you don't like get, go shop elsewhere.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[digitalchinky]

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.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least Apple should allow people to wipe everything and begin anew.

And that is my understanding of exactly what the update does. It doesn't "brick" the phone, it resets it to an out-of-box unregistered state. If the phone has already been registered with AT&T and if that account is still active, it's trivial to reattach it.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

a)Apple deliberately made the update brick the phone if third party applications were installed.

Bricking only happens with unlocked phones, third party apps had nothing to do with it, those apps were hidden from view. The assertion of deliberate is conjecture. They may have but we might never know until people pick apart the update. It _is_ possible to reverse the "bricking" and restore it to a previous firmware, so I'm not sure if it's a true bricking or not.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[stargazer_55]

Didn't the buyer of the iPhone have previous knowledge that they were entering into an agreement with Apple and AT&T that was for an exclusive network? And didn't the buyer know from the agreement that by purchasing this phone they could only load approved software on it? The buyer had a choice from the beginning: buy the phone and adhere to the agreed rules or don't buy the freekin' phone. I didn't buy one because these restrictions existed and guess what... I'm not out the money with a useless brick and I'm not looking to sue anybody. Having said that I think Apple could have come up with a better way to service the wayward customer other than leaving them with a useless piece of junk and a bad taste in their mouth. After all, it is software, right? Why can't a simple procedure of reloading the iPhone's software take care of the problem? Then tell the customer, don't do it again! Oh, something else for you "sue happy" iPhone people: the only winners in a class action suit are the lawyers!

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[gnasher719]

I stand to be corrected here, but is there any *actual* evidence (apart from hearsay) that the bricking was deliberate. I don't think there has been even hearsay. "Hearsay" would be if I posted here that some Apple engineer with actual knowledge of the matter told me something. But that has not happened. What we have are just completely unfounded assumptions.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[kybur]

I reject the bad car analogy. a) Buy a new BMW. b) Hack the ECU (engine control unit) computer and reload it with your own software. What do you think the BMW service center is going to to with your warrantee (and your blown engine) if they figure out what you did? Suppose the tweaks you made work, and some how a software update from the mechanic works too, but the combination is fatal to the engine. Should this be covered by warrantee?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[stewbacca]

That sure was nice of Apple to warn people then, if they DELIBERATELY did what you say. The problem is, you're an Apple-hater, and your logic is biased.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Shivetya]

I don't have an iPhone so I have to ask.

Before the update process took effect when the user plugged their phone into its cradle was any warning given?

If not then I think this guy may have a case. Combined with some comments from Steve Jobs about not allowing this or that and looking to prevent it he may have enough to get a jury to find against Apple.

I said it before and said it again. The cell phone market isn't the iPod market, its not the Mac market. Its the cell phone market and people have different expectations and Apple is trying to change a system that is well established. The question becomes, who budges? Apple or the cell phone market? Given the court system which corporations are routinely vilified for even normal and legal actions Apple will have to tread carefully

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[uncleFester]

What about when the phone company disabling features to make a profit or otherwise cripple the hardware? i.e. damn near every US Verizon phone with that shiatty UI, software-blocked bluetooth transfer of ringtones/etc, and so on..

It is extremely frustrating to have a phone capable of many functions only to have the service providor lock you out of them simply to charge you to use that 'feature.'

-r

(and yes, i do bitch and have verizon.. but i also get an amazing deal on service (+ a free krzr, which i LOVE) via work so i grit my teeth and bear it..)

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[stewbacca]

Says a cynic with a grudge.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[alshithead]

"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.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[tepples]

I reject the bad car analogy. a) Buy a new BMW. b) Hack the ECU (engine control unit) computer and reload it with your own software. What do you think the BMW service center is going to to with your warrantee (and your blown engine) if they figure out what you did? To continue your analogy, why should hacking the ECU be necessary in order to, say, receive satellite radio on the car stereo?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Troll...It does NOT invalidate your warranty despite what Apple wants to tell you. The burden is on Apple to prove that the software additions caused the failure. You should read up on your rights under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Furthermore the tens of thousands of working iPhones under 1.0.2 with just 3rd party apps and the thousands of other working unlocked phones is more than enough proof that Apple punitively and deliberaletly broke iPhones with 1.1.1. They are in a world of trouble when attorney generals the likes of Spitzer from NY get energized. This is the valid lawsuit unlike the price drop lawsuit announced a few days ago.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[alshithead]

"What *was* deliberate was the encryption of the firmware to lock out third party apps/mods. That's a deliberate step to lock down the phone, as with the touch, not an unintended consequence."

They have every right to try to lock out third party apps/mods. I could create a machine that sucks dicks. Don't come crying to me if it bites your dick off if you modify the firmware to try and let it toss your salad too. My warranty would state that the alshithead dick sucker is specifically for sucking dick and alshithead will not repair, replace, or sew dicks back on if modified in any way. :P

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[lseltzer]

Everyone who buys an iPhone knows about these rules. You don't like them, don't buy an iPhone. It's not like it's an actual necessity of life.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[geminidomino]

I'm not saying that there's any liability there. I'm just saying it was said ahead of time that it 'could' break the phone, so the fanbois' "it's an accident" defense is bullshit.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[geminidomino]

A grudge against whom? I've never bought an Apple product in my life. Never will, most likely. They're almost invariably overpriced compared to competing products.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[zippthorne]

But you knew that before you bought the car, so Why did you buy the car? Wouldn't it be better to buy a different car that maybe isn't quite as luxurious, but doesn't preclude features which you clearly desire?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[RalphBNumbers]

Yeah, because you know no one is going to clone the iPhone regardless of Apple's wishes.

And even if someone did, it'd be some fly by night company from a country like China with little intellectual property enforcement, not a huge American or European corporation like Intel or Nokia.

Obviously the iPhone is not only unrivaled, but unrival-able, and thus Apple's monopoly on iPhones must be restricted!

</sarcasm>

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[MasterOfCeremonies]

While i agree that Apple should be forced to sell unlocked phones
Er... Apple should be allowed to sell whatever they like as long as it isn't dangerous. If you don't like their product, then it's your choice not to buy it.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[zippthorne]

Really depends on what your tweaks failed. If the replacement is cheap enough, they'll probably honor the warranty, replace the computer, and scold you. They may charge for some or all of the parts, but remember that automobiles are user serviceable, so they have to accept at least some of your tweaking.

People who buy new BMWs don't typically keep them for very long before buying another BMW, so depending on the cost, it may well be worthwhile for them give a bit to keep a customer. Of course, people who buy new BMWs also don't typically mod their computers for small performance gains, either.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[jamar0303]

Going by your definition, China counts as a truly free market (yay Meizu).

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[butlerdi]

Are you really as stupid as your post makes you sound ?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[top_down]

No that is classic anti-competitive behaviour. The whole idea of a free market is that there are many suppliers and many buyers. It refers to the balance of power in the market and the resulting quality of choice, not just to the fact that people can chose.

In both a free competitive market and a (non-free) non-competitive market you will be able to chose and not be forced to buy anything (well strictly speaking). What is different is the quality of the options to chose from. Apple presents us with 2 bad options.

The fact that it's a luxury product that only addicted people will buy doesn't change the fact that it sets a bad precedent and I don't see why we should allow this kind of anti-competitive behaviour.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your analogy is completely broken. What people have done is simply modify their firmware [against the terms of use of the device] along with the addition of a few new 3rd party applications [which install software in places not intended by apple] . Keeping this in mind, why is it so hard for Apple to release an update that [takes into account software they didn't write and may not be aware of] 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."

I'm not in love with this new breed of wannabe hacker that isn't willing to take responsibility for their actions. When you modify the contents of the flash ram, you better be ready to get fucked up the ass if you try to use the warranty.

Apple warned beforehand that their tests showed if you fucked with the thing you may brick it by updating (you have to agree to this before it installs).

so take some fucking responsibility for your actions and quit whining. The reason apple doesn't clear the flash ram is they aren't responsible for retards that don't know THEY should do that before trying to update.

I've been doing the same shit on my PSP for over year, and it's my responsibility to make sure the thing is stock before I re-hack it.

Lesson learned, twats?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[dniq]

When an update is about to be installed on a system with an unknown state - the update process should fail and refuse to continue the installation. In this case update continued and then users found out they're unable to use their quite expensive phones any longer. As far as "unauthorized" modifications are concerned: the 1.1.1 update contained complete OS update (or, rather, replacement) AND modem firmware. Since this is an OS X operating system, and I know it for a fact that installing updates on Mac doesn't brick "modified" Macs (with software other than that, which comes with OS), I can't imagine why the same can't be true for a mini computer, such as iPhone. In any event, the "bricking" here is software related, and it would only take about a minute or so to fix that, so Apple's posturing here is not because the phone is "broken" - it is not. What is the reason for the posturing - I don't know. And their suggestion to "go buy a new iPhone"? You have to be kidding, right? Yeah, sure, I'll go and buy a new "iPhone" from the company, which acts like pure assholes to the people, who gave them their money.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[laffer1]

Apple already does this with the iPod. You can "flash" it to factory and reload your songs. I agree with that point. However, I don't think the gp's analogy was wrong. He shouldn't have used coffee perhaps. It isn't a related feature. Think of it this way, you are adding a feature that was not intended for the original device. An embedded device does not guarantee the same benefits as a PC.

Take any product x where it is one of dvd player, toaster, washer, flame thrower, easy bake oven and modify it with new functionality not sanctioned by the vendor. Then when they won't warranty it, file lawsuit. See the problem?

I think the real issue is that Apple and the media have called the iPhone a smartphone. When we think of smartphones, we think of pdas + phones with some multimedia capabilities. The iPhone is an ipod + phone with some pda capabilities. As apple changed the definition, we've yet to grasp this difference. A real PDA lets me load additional software. The iPhone is not that type of device. Apple fans wanted a new newton for modern day and they didn't get one. Apple haters are comparing the device to a windows smartphone which does completely different things. Would you expect a zune + phone to be a good pda? I wouldn't.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Lumpy]

first your comparison is so whacked out it's stupid.

The "hacking" is a firmware change. if I HACK my dvd player to be region free and it fails. is incredibly different than piping in water, heating elements and a burr grinder to make some fine tasting coffee.

And just to let you know, Manufacturers on regular occasion DO honor the warranty on the device that is running HACKED firmware. It's a hardware warranty, therefore they honor it if you do not modify the hardware.

I have returned for a replacement several devices I had a hacked firmware installed on. They sent me a new item that I then hack again.

Hell I got service on a lite-on dvd recorder that I soldered on the IDE header and had a hard drive installed in and the firmware to make it the top model for far less. they happily gave me a refurb that is still working fine to this day.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[mini me]

but doesn't preclude features which you clearly desire?

In this case BMW has a patent on an advanced steering wheel that makes driving significantly safer and enjoyable; a must have for all new car buyers. But because of the patent you can't just go buy a run of a mill automobile that has the advanced steering wheel and all the other features one would expect from a modern automobile. Therefore buying the BMW and hacking the ECU is the only way to acquire the automobile one desires.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[tgibbs]

When an update is about to be installed on a system with an unknown state - the update process should fail and refuse to continue the installation.

Firmware updates are inherently risky. There are many examples in which a firmware update that fails can render a product unusable. So if the updater executes a procedure that should put the phone into a known state (but it doesn't because of a 3rd party hack) then executes a firmware update, the phone could well end up in a state where the standard recovery procedure won't work. Apple is certainly not obligated to debut their updates to work with the multiple, unauthorized unlocking modifications

Apple can almost certainly fix the bricked phones. The question is, should they? The certainly don't want to come across as endorsing unlocking. So at present, it seems that Apple's official policy is that they are under no obligation to fix or replace the phone if you managed to destroy its functionality by (a) violating your warranty, and (b) ignoring the ALL CAPS WARNING not to install the update if your phone was unlocked. However, Apple stores are reported to be restoring bricked phones on a case-by-case basis.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[tgibbs]

Before the update process took effect when the user plugged their phone into its cradle was any warning given?

Yes, an ALL CAPS warning appeared on the screen warning owners of unlocked iPhones not to install the update.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[RobertLTux]

that "could" brick the phone is because you could purchase a "lotto" ticket and win on the first try but its unlikely
Will Brick > Might Brick > Could Brick > NonZero Chance of Bricking > We are unaware of any cases that would cause "bricking" and have tested as many unlock methods as we are aware of > Can't Brick.

I would think that IPhone version 1.6.7u will have an official unlock method (but then they wiil be past the AT&T contract by then.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[CRC'99]

Your car analogy isn't a particularly good one, as Apple aren't saying they won't repair a phone which has physical faults or non-software related issues. Apple are in no way responsible for the software if it's been modified by the end-user. This is fairly standard stuff in software development/support terms.

Agreed. Here's a better car analogy. You go our and buy a brand new shiny car, take it home and hear that there's a simple modification to the EEPROM in the engine management computer that will give you an extra 20% power. You flash the new EEPROM yourself and install it. A day later, the car engine refuses to work and is pretty much toast. Do you expect the manufacturer of the car to fix everything?

If you said yes, then you're in for a rude awakening...

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Dragonslicer]

And how could we go about getting proof... hmmm... maybe... how about a lawsuit? Isn't that what they're for - a group of people have a strong suspicion of foul play and would like to know if it indeed happened as they believe and if there is a legal remedy for it. You must be new here. Welcome to the United States.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[s4ltyd0g]

Oh common... Apple never heard of checksums? They could have simply overwritten the firmware and returned the phone to it's initial state. But that is not what they chose to do now is it? Warranty voided or not, what gives Apple the right to break somebody's phone? If the bricking wasn't deliberate, then what kind of half assed company blindly updates firmware for their device, without first determining that the device is in a known state?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Chaos Incarnate]

If you would want to sure that nitwit of a car-mechanic (probably for willfull negligence and maybe destruction of property) than why not Apple (who could could easily add a check for a tuned, and therefore maybe not compatible to their upgrade, system) ? Because in this case, while the mechanic supplied the part it's the owner who did the actual installation. And the mechanic warned the owner repeatedly that it might not work if they modified the car.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[teknopurge]

If you modify an embedded system in a non-vendor approved way and then install a vendor update and the update brakes cause you did something incompatible.... Then it's your fault, not the vendors...

While i agree that Apple should be forced to sell unlocked phones, modifying a product in a non-approved way DOES invalidate your waranty. Why should the vendor be held reliable if YOU break his software? Because when I get handed a cup of coffee I expect it to be room-temperature.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[SuperMog2002]

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?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[ThatsNotFunny]

Ah, Slashdot... where posts about machines biting off dicks are rated Informative!

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Phleg]

An analogy, since you seem to be completely incapable of rational thought. I tell you that speeding increases your chance of an accident, and you could die.

One week later, you're in an accident while speeding, and die. Premeditated?

They told users that it might brick their phones precisely because of that. The update might brick the phones. That's a fair warning, not a sign that the bricking was intentional. Could it be intentional? Sure. But there's not a goddamn bit of evidence that it was.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[smilindog2000]

I totally agree. The "Genius" at the Apple store told me that they had intentionally disabled my iPhone, rather than accidentally. My response? I smashed the phone to pieces in front of him, and I'm promoting Ubuntu Mobile as an alternative for future smart phones, rather than Darwin. I figure I can do more good for the world as a coder for Ubuntu Mobile than I could as a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Space cowboy]

Completely correct, within the confines of the analogy.

So:

YOU buy the car in the full knowledge that the engine isn't customer-servicable.

YOU modify the ECU, in violation of your warranty, with some help over the phone from a garage you found in a dodgy part of town

YOU take the car into the dealer to get "super ECU update"

The dealer *tells* you the update may damage the engine if you've modified it yourself

YOU *choose* to take that risk anyway

The dealer modifies the car engine

YOU have a 3-ton paperweight.

YOU made the incompatible changes. YOU chose to take the risk on those changes. YOU are responsible for the consequences. Far too few people seem to be accepting that.

My iphone is hacked, and you know what ? Due to owning more than one brain cell, I haven't applied the 1.1.1 update. How hard was that ?

Simon

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Fatal67]

Let us make sure we are accurate here.

Did the mechanic inform you at least a day ahead of time that if you installed this part on your car, while using these other parts, your car would be break?

When you pulled the car in to the docking bay, was there a sign you had to read before you could continue that told you this part was going to break your customized car?

Once in the docking bay with the hood up and the part in his hand, did the mechanic come over and yell in your face and tell you that this part was going to render your car useless?

If he did all of those things, and you still asked to install the part anyway, then you're right it's just like the software update from apple.

Of course, if all of this happened exactly this way, and you still want to sue the mechanic because it's his fault, you are probably having a hard time understanding this anyway. Sorry for so many multi-syllable words.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[SanityInAnarchy]

According to your analogy, it's perfectly acceptable for the firmware update to not brick my player because of any technical reason, but to actually contain code like:

if (coffee_maker_detected()) {
brick();
} else {
do_what_customer_fucking_bought_it_for();
}

Now, I am not positive that it was done this way, but I'm fairly sure Apple has done things like this in the past, where they deliberately broke the homebrew stuff, for no other reason than to break the homebrew stuff (or maybe to tighten their DRM, with the iPod, for instance...)

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[janrinok]

Possibly, but nowhere near as arrogant as your post makes you sound. Now, why do you think my post was stupid? You haven't offered any sensible discussion, or provided a link to any information that might either counter my assertion or support the original claim that Apple's actions were deliberate. I accept that the end result is a bricked phone, but not that it was Apple's sole intention to do so when they issued the new software update. They did point out that it could have such an effect but that was, they claimed, because they did not know the state of the software. They hadn't installed it, the user had modified it, so how could they know? Perhaps my suggestion is counter to your own belief: your reply didn't give me much to go on :-). Perhaps you are one of the idiots who paid a stupid amount of money for a phone that they didn't want in the form in which they purchased it, and which came with a telephone subscription tied to ATT - which they also didn't want. If it wasn't what people wanted - why did they buy it? And, having been warned by Apple that they could not guarantee the working of their new software once the update was applied, why did those who had unlocked the telephone continue with the update? And you are suggesting that I am stupid?

Are you really as stupid as your post now makes you sound? We can only hope not.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[kcelery]

OTOH, Apple could satisfy the customer by selling an unlocked model at ten times the price. Doing so, it makes the locked model a real bargain. Which also saved their ass from lawsuits. The consumers can hardly sue Apple for a 10x price tag.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Tangent128]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that 3rd party apps were simply overwritten. The bricking only happens to phones that have been unlocked, which messes with the SIM. Clearing the SIM probably isn't a good idea...

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[jcuervo]

It's not like little gnomes entered the iPhone and physically started destroying the hardware. Or is it?!

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[asuffield]

If you modify an embedded system in a non-vendor approved way and then install a vendor update and the update brakes cause you did something incompatible.... Then it's your fault, not the vendors...

That may be your opinion, but it is not the law. The law says that vendor approval is not required. The law says that the vendor is responsible for any failure that occurs as part of something that a reasonable person might expect to do with the product. Not something that then vendor wanted them to do, but something that the user would expect the product to do. If the vendor thinks the user's actions were unreasonable, then they have to prove this in court. If they can't or don't, the courts presume the vendor is at fault.

You cannot document your way out of this and you cannot write contracts to evade it; the courts have upheld this so many times now that it's just not funny any more.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Doctor_Jest]

No, lawsuits are subsidies for the lawyer class in this country... (that would be the United States)

Nothing gets accomplished, unless what you had in mind was to make lawyers rich... then the system works perfectly.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[godawful]

but it wasn't broken, you voided your warranty and it worked. could have stayed that way.. why apply the new software if you were happy where things were? especially when it was said that if you've modified the firmware of the radio, that the software update could have unexpected consequences.

me? i like the third party apps, so i just haven't installed the update, phone still works fine. it is also worth mentioning, that having third party apps installed isn't what bricks the phone, its the third party modifiers for unlocking from at&t solely.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[asuffield]

I stand to be corrected here, but is there any *actual* evidence (apart from hearsay) that the bricking was deliberate. It seems to me perfectly understandable that if the software and configuration files on the phone aren't exactly as they were shipped, then an update could quite reasonably fail, and as the iPhone isn't a consumer product which allows the user to install new software, then there is no reason for Apple to develop updates which work with anything other than the default software shipped with the unit. It's entirely their baby, and unless the update causes problems on phones with their default install, they're not responsible for any problems you may have.

The law does not require evidence of deliberate bricking. The law requires Apple to prove that installing software on a cellphone is an unreasonable action and is the direct cause of the fault. If they cannot do these things, they are held responsible for the fault.

They don't actually have to support modified phones, but they do have to offer a refund, repair the broken device, or replace it with a new one, should it break. You cannot void a statutory warranty - regardless of what you do to the device, if the vendor is responsible for the actual fault, they are required to make good.

A plaintiff might argue that the fault is caused by Apple's update being applied to a phone on which it did not work, because it did not check to see whether the current software version was the expected one. The court wouldn't require Apple to provide updates for modified phones, but they might easily find Apple responsible for producing updates that don't have suitable safeguards in place, and require them to repair/refund/replace any phones that these updates brick.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Draek]

actually, a much closer analogy would be if your DVD player only played certain, "special" kinds of DVDs, and you modivied the firmware so that it could play all kinds of DVDs. And in that case you'd be liable under the DMCA so I guess iPhone owners got off easily by "just" losing their phone and warranty.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[geobeck]

What gets me is that people are acting like someone forced them to buy an iPhone. Forgive me for asking, but does AT&T only offer one model of phone? Are there no other cellular carriers in the US? Are there no other phones available that offer comparable features?

Everyone who bought an iPhone knew the restrictions. They knew they were risking breaking the thing by using a third-party hack to modify it.

If they didn't want to be locked in, and if they want a phone that had features like using it for data storage, why did they buy an iPhone? It obviously doesn't meet their functional requirements. Are people really so stuperficial* that they absolutely must have every new device that starts with a lower-case "i"?

*stuperficial, adj. - stupidly superficial. From geobeck's dictionary of clueless user terms.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[hawk]

You clearly read a different post; he said no such thing.

Strike the if clause from your code, and always do the second.

What he said is that if the do_it code has collateral effects on modified products, that it's the modifier's problem, not the manufacturer's.

hawkk

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[hawk]

It would sort of be like Microsoft using the only encrypted code in windows and detecting you have DR-DOS installed on your computer while booting MS Windows and then freezing without explanation .

There. Better. :)

hawk

[OK, OK. The encrypted code actually did this if it didn't find a "known" version of MS-DOS.]

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[hawk]

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice.

You are mixing product liability law (reasonably foreseeable uses) and warranty law. They're different.

hawk, esq.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[shmlco]

So you've never bought an Apple product in your life? Yeah, I can see how that would make your opinion worth reading.

'Course, now you're going to tell me how your friend's brother's uncle saw one in a store window back in 1984...

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[SheeEttin]

Yet.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[shmlco]

"What *was* deliberate was the encryption of the firmware to lock out third party apps/mods."

Since people got in via exploits in the OS, *I* would think that it would be criminal of Apple NOT to close the loopholes. I want a secure device with no known exploits, and Apple sure as heck doesn't want to be the first one out there with a major worm or virus on their phones.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[cgenman]

Having read up a bit on iPhone unlocking, my impression was that unlocking the iPhone consists of changing a software flag that tells the iPhone to assume it is on a valid network instead of checking. If it is a flag as asserted, then there is no reason why changing said flag should stop the iPhone from working, unless it breaks some new form of validation put into place to stop this type of unlocking.

If you add a spigot to your watertank and it no longer works, that is your fault and the company doesn't have to do anything. If you add a spigot to your watertank and the company sends a representative over with a crowbar to destroy your property, that's illegal. Why should digital be any different?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[shmlco]

"... is trying to change a system that is well established."

Well, SOMEONE needs to do it! Because I'm sick and tired of over-priced data plans, per-message SMS charges, outrageous roaming fees, standing around waiting for some minimum-wage jerk to activate my phone, and four or five dollar song and ringtone downloads. And don't get me started on customer service.

At least with the iPhone Apple got the data plan semi-reasonably priced, vastly improved the activation process, allowed me to use my own MP3s or $0.99 iTunes downloads, and $0.99 ringtones.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[vertigoCiel]

No one forced you to update.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[pthor1231]

So don't buy the phone from verizon, get it yourself, at full price, and use any of the features you want to.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[jkoke]

Not really an appropriate analogy. Apple didn't send anybody over to crowbar your phone. Here's a better way to look at it: Let's say you want to put a more efficient aftermarket carburetor on your car. To install the new equipment, you make a few modifications to the engine block. Some time later the dealer sends you a package with a new improved carburetor from the manufacturer. You can choose to throw the new equipment in the trash, but if you install it and the engine breaks because of the engine block modifications that you made, it can only be your fault.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

If you hack your DVD player so that it makes coffee in addition to playing DVDs, then that's totally irrelevant to this discussion and absolutely not the same thing as installing tetris on your phone. In fact only a retarded moron or rabid Apple fanboi would even suggest it was.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[SanityInAnarchy]

I realize he said no such thing.

However, the question is whether Apple has done something like that. I don't think we have a clear answer.

I realize that iff it's merely collateral damage, there's no problem, though it would've been nice of them not to break unlocked phones if they could help it. But that might not be the case.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Twisted64]

I could create a machine that sucks dicks.

Blueprints plz :-P

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[geminidomino]

How does owning or not owning an Apple product change the fact that the temporal sequence of events showed that Apple was aware of the possibility of this problem before the patch was even released, and thus serves as a rebuttal to the "Apple wouldn't do that! They surely knew nothing about this!" line of reasoning?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[geminidomino]

Hopefully you're being snarky, and aren't actually so steeped in the RDF that you beleive the only reason someone wouldn't buy Apple is because they have a grudge against the company...

I'm just not their target market. Their prices and "Mac Vs PC" commercials proved that. (I would love to get a C++ GUI Programming Manual for Xmas... even if it was for QT)

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[asuffield]

I'm guessing you're a US lawyer. I suppose that particular part may be different in the US; I am primarily familiar with the UK/commonwealth variant, where the standard for the statutory warranty is the expectations of the hypothetical reasonable buyer. This does have some interesting effects - for example, a reasonable person expects a higher standard of quality from a significantly more expensive product, so the courts hold them to that.

I don't think this is relevant in the iPhone case, though.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[ciw42]

"The law requires Apple to prove that installing software on a cellphone is an unreasonable action and is the direct cause of the fault. If they cannot do these things, they are held responsible for the fault."

This is insanely easy for Apple to do. They simply show that if the firmware on the device has not been modified by the end user, then the update works perfectly. The end-user modifications to the firmware are therefore the direct cause of the phone becoming bricked. End of story.

If this ever went to court, Apple could simply provide two vanilla iPhones, ask an official in the court to pick one of them at random and perform the unlocking procedure used by the plaintiff on it. Both phones would then have their firmware updated and the court would then be shown that the unmodified one works fine, but the one which had been unlocked had became bricked. You could repeat this over and over to your heart's content and the outcome would be the same, thus proving that the end-user's actions were directly responsible for the fault.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[hawk]

Here, it goes farther in tort. For example, fishing line being used to hang pictures was found foreseeable (I think that one was about labeling). Extensions of warranty have been primarily statutory, which would tend to make the law diverge more between US and Britain.

hawk, esq

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[asuffield]

If this ever went to court, Apple could simply provide two vanilla iPhones, ask an official in the court to pick one of them at random and perform the unlocking procedure used by the plaintiff on it. Both phones would then have their firmware updated and the court would then be shown that the unmodified one works fine, but the one which had been unlocked had became bricked. You could repeat this over and over to your heart's content and the outcome would be the same, thus proving that the end-user's actions were directly responsible for the fault.

What you describe doesn't actually prove that the phone isn't defective, it merely proves that no defect is apparent in an unmodified phone. It could quite easily be that a defect was present from the start but only manifested itself when a certain sequence of actions occurred - this demonstration fails to show that this isn't the case, so it's pretty meaningless.

Also, the judge could quite easily rule that Apple should have known that some users might have altered their phones at the time they released the update (since Apple have already publicly admitted to knowing that some users have altered their phones, that's trivial to prove), and hence the upgrade itself is the defective component for bricking those phones, rather than simply refusing to install. Since Apple produced the upgrade, that makes it their fault.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[GaryPatterson]

That's a... colourful... metaphor. I'm a bit lost for words, to be honest.

Still - you can admit it, you write EULAs don't you? I'm pretty sure this sort of thing is buried in most EULAs in caps after the bit about prohibited countries.

Anyway, today's award for Best and Most Unusual Metaphor goes to you, alshithead. I'd thank you personally, but I'm still not sure how I feel about it.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Doctor_Jest]

Indeed. Truth hurts. I didn't know lawyers read slashdot! :) *Waves*

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[JoelKatz]

It doesn't void your warranty. Read up on Magnusson-Moss sometime.

Do you think Ford can say, "if you let anyone but our dealers do your oil changes, it voids your warranty"?

Nope. Not legal. Thanks for playing though.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Damvan]

If the BMW doesn't have satellite radio, and that is an important enough criteria to you, then don't buy a fucking BMW.

If the iPhone doesn't do what you want it to, don't buy a fucking iPhone. In the US, iPhones work with AT&T. Don't want AT&T, don't buy an iPhone.

I am sick of these idiotic arguments. You hacked it, you knew hacking it was contrary to the warranty, Apple warned you TWICE before applying update, you applied update. And now you think it is Apple's fault?

I have a DirecTV Tivo. It doesn't work with Dish Network. Can I sue Hughes, the manufacturer, for not providing me the ability to make the Tivo work with Dish? They locked the box! I demand that they unlock it!

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Ed Avis]

Yes, and all that Benny here said is that if you don't buy our insurance, your restaurant might accidentally be burned to the ground by some future event.

As long as Apple continue to distribute firmware as an unreadable binary blob, with no independent way to check what it is doing to your phone, they'll continue to have this cloud of suspicion about what the update is really doing.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[tepples]

If the iPhone doesn't do what you want it to, don't buy a fucking iPhone. What phone does what I want it to do?

In the US, iPhones work with AT&T. Don't want AT&T, don't buy an iPhone. What network does what I want it to do?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Muad'Dave]

I have a Motorola Razr that I bought from Verizon that they functionally-crippled. It was marketed as a "Motorola Razr", and in fact their website pointed you to Motorola's site that described the full feature phone. No where did they mention that their version was crippled, or did they market it under a different name like "Razr-lite".

I consider that fraud. I was led to believe that I was getting a Motorola Razr, not a pared-down version. If I went to a car dealer and bought model "X" car, I'd be a little upset to find out that dealer "Y" sells the cars after ripping the motor out, without telling the customer, or letting them look under the hood.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[LKM]

But that is what Apple's update already does. The problem is that the SIM unlock changes the firmware of the modem in a way that seems to be incompatible with Apple's new iPhone software. Do you propose that Apple flashes all firmwares of all components in the phone whenever there's a n update?

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[kybur]

To continue on this off topic subthread, I personally can't wait for a high performance - open source - electric car with motors on each wheel. Think about the possibilities. Expensive hardware like traction control, over/understeering protection, antilock brakes, limited slip differentials, etc, can all be replaced by software. The savings should more than cover the cost of batteries/fuel cells.

Watch them lose the case....

[3seas]

... and this will settle the matter once and for all.

I mean when you have to buy numerous formats of a song because you are not allowed to pirate what you buy, to yourself for use on another device.... then of course At&T iphone lockin is acceptable.... If you want to use a different carrier you need to use a different format/device.

Anticompetitive practices is the only thing to argue here, but if you bring in a bunch of other non-issues then you can make the case lose.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[Tastecicles]

I don't get that mentality. Here we have the right to format-shift. I don't have to buy from iTunes to listen on my iPod, I can just rip the CD I bought this morning, add the mp3 to my home library, play it over the mood speakers, blast it out in my back garden, or stick the buds in my lugholes and drink coke and be happy.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[hedwards]

I don't get that mentality. Here we have the right to format-shift. I don't have to buy from iTunes to listen on my iPod, I can just rip the CD I bought this morning, add the mp3 to my home library, play it over the mood speakers, blast it out in my back garden, or stick the buds in my lugholes and drink coke and be happy. It's exactly the same thing. Nobody here is talking about requiring carriers to provide a new phone to those that leave their service for a completely incompatible network. It isn't unreasonable for people to expect that after fulfilling their contract that they be allowed to use their phone on whatever network they wish.

When it comes to vendor subsidized phones, there should be some lock in involved so that the carrier with the best rebate doesn't end up screwed.

What you seem to be missing is that the iphones are not being subsidized by AT&T, they are being paid for entirely by the customer, and as such would normally not come with a lock. The only reason why they are being locked is that AT&T isn't able to compete with other carriers.

Normally when one buys a phone separate from service one can just buy it in an unlocked state, and if the service sucks go to a different provider. And that is the rub, there is no way of buying an apple sanction iphone which isn't locked, but yet apple refuses to allow for subsidies on the price anyway.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[MikeBabcock]

Speaking of re-purchase, I'm thoroughly annoyed, having just got a new phone from the same provider as my last one, that I have to repurchase the games I downloaded to my last phone. Same phone number, same contract and everything, but I'd have to repurchase the games to get them onto my new phone. That makes just /so/ much sense.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[Tastecicles]

I didn't miss that point, but everyone else thanks you for pointing it out to those who might have missed it :)

Aside, I paid £60 for my cheapo camera phone, which considering I paid less for a V3r on Orange which is unlocked as supplied, should itself have been open to all networks. I can't help but feel ripped off.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[petermgreen]

What you seem to be missing is that the iphones are not being subsidized by AT&T, they are being paid for entirely by the customer, and as such would normally not come with a lock. The only reason why they are being locked is that AT&T isn't able to compete with other carriers.
They are being subsidised by AT&T just in a more roundabout way than usual. Rather than AT&T selling you the phone at a discount conditional on you buying a contract apple are selling you the phone and then AT&T pay the subsidy monthly once you activate it.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[MttJocy]

Why precisely does that make locking (at least in the current sense of it being none removable) a necessity, perhaps I am confused here but it seams to me you clearly mentioned that a contract was signed, a binding legal contract right? Seams to me there is a solution for subsidized phones, what would be wrong with have the following in the contract?

Termination
Should the customer choose to terminate this contract before the end of the contract term of , a fee of will be applied at which time your unlocking code will be provided. The unlocking code will be released free of charge for terminations after the end of .

Now if that was the content of these contracts I would find it reasonable, they would simply be upholding their contractual rights via technological means without impairing the rights of the consumer, in many ways it would be like most of the agreements for new DSL service provision in the UK, generally if the user accepts a free activation (the telcos charge the ISP for this £60 for BT for instance) and/or free hardware many isp's will permit the user to leave before the twelve month contract period if they compensate the ISP for the cost of the subsidized activation and hardware (not all, but this is where reading the contract comes in). However after the end of the contract term one can migrate or terminate without cost, or having to jump through technological hoops that are protecting a contractual right which is no longer valid.

However I do not think that even a hardware subsidy should force someone into remaining with a carrier after the end of their agreed contract term or loose the use of the hardware (which remember the end customer has paid a share of as well, and has met the suppliers terms for their contribution to the cost).

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[GPL Apostate]

When it comes to vendor subsidized phones, there should be some lock in involved so that the carrier with the best rebate doesn't end up screwed.

I have to ask: why?

Does the legal structure have to be maintained in a way that insures that various marketing gymmicks remain viable? What 'natural rule' exists that turns 'subsidized phone sales' a feature of nature? If 'subsidized phones' and 'best rebate choices' go away, would anybody miss them except for the marketing people who distort the virtues of such gymmicks to sell? It seems to me that instead the market would become more truthful. Why should the law establish a playground with arbitrary rules, for marketers to bully people in?

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[Pikoro]

heh, i have to agree here. My phone has 20+ brew apps on it that I have paid probablly close to a total of $40 on and if I get a new phone, even one from the same maker (sanyo on this case) then I have to forfit those apps in order to get a new phone. My current one broke, the screen is dead, but i have to re-pay for the apps... that really sucks...

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[hedwards]

Mostly because there are other options that people can use. They can pay for the phone on their own and get one that is unlocked. Or they could go prepaid.

But the fact is that there are some people that can't afford to pay for a phone up front, and getting a free phone, even if locked is far better than having to do without service.

The lock and the contract are what makes it possible to provide the free phone with service. As I mentioned, the phone should be automatically unlocked once the agreement has been fulfilled.

If you're going to make this sort of complaint, it would make more sense to complain about how Sprint won't activate an unlocked phone unless it has their logo on it. That is egregious rather than annoying. Unlike the rest of the carriers that will activate any unlocked phone that is compatible with their network, Sprint won't unless the specific handset has been blessed.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[hedwards]

I agree, I probably should have specified locked during the contract period with the unlocking being included in the fee for breaking the contract or free after having fulfilled the contract. But I didn't because it was meant as an example exception not as a proposition.

My main point with it was that there really isn't any good reason why a phone which is purchased separately from a plan should be locked at all. If it is there intention that somebody be locked into service with AT&T when they buy the iphone, then the lock should only exclude activation on other networks.

Bricking a phone because somebody wanted to install additional or non approved software is pretty sad. I probably should have pointed out in my original post that the lock in should only be enough to maintain the terms of the contract not to prevent the customer from making full use of the device. Or in other words, it should be based upon some sort of contractual obligation rather than a decision by the carrier and a third party. Doesn't strike me that I should be bound to that should I change my mind and decide to purchase an iphone.

Which does get back to what I've been saying more or less since it was announced, it is basically overpriced for a piece of hardware which is so limited in scope. Worse is the fact that the hardware could do quite a bit more if it were allowed to do so. I'm sure it is a great device, but as long as the lock prevents people from making full use of the device, it won't be something that I'll own, regardless of price.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[howlingmadhowie]

you can't be serious. does it really work like this?

sometimes, my naivity is just breath-taking...

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[rreyelts]

Now that's lawsuit worthy. Certainly there's an expectation that any software you purchase for one phone should be transferable to a compatible phone, just as any software you purchase for a computer is transferable to another compatible computer.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to sell software/media bound to one phone, but that they must have the burden of clearly demonstrating to the consumer, prior to purchase, that those are the terms of purchase. The nice side effect of that is that very few people would realistically agree to something so ludicrous, which would force the carriers to rethink that model.

In general, the amount of bundling and lock-in going on with carriers and phones is totally ridiculous. I'm ready for a change.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[tool462]

It is made very clear in the EULA you have to agree to before purchasing the game--at least it has been on any game I've looked at. It would be nice if that were actually illegal, voiding that part of the EULA, but I'm not too optimistic.

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[Damvan]

I am sure it is Apple's fault somehow.

Join the lawsuit!

Caveat Emptor

[Nymz]

Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware.

Honestly, Apple has not attempted to deceive anyone on this issue, and they make it clear that service is with AT&T only. If you don't want to be locked-in with AT&T, then don't buy an iPhone. Period. If you still must absolutely have a class-action lawsuit, then do it against the Steve Jobs backdating accounting scandal.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[tgibbs]

Except mobile phone vendor lockin is against the law.

Wrong. It is the other way around. Lock-in is legal, but there is a specific exemption in copyright law that says that it is not illegal for an owner to attempt to defeat the lock (without this exemption, it would be a violation of copyright law to unlock a phone). However, the manufacturer is under no legal obligation to make it easy, or even possible, to unlock the phone, and also no under obligation to provide service or updates to unlocked phones.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[asuffield]

Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware.

And as the article says, this legal principle is no longer the golden rule. In modern law, vendors are responsible for their products, through statutory warranty.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[djbckr]

Hate to say "agreed" here, but this is the case: You bought a phone with specific functionality (which apparently you didn't like - not sure why you bought it in the first place). You voided the warranty when you modified it (just like you void automobile warranties when you pimp your ride). You lose. Apple wins. I seriously don't see any other options here.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Rayban]

This is an example of Hobson's choice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice

"Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. The choice is therefore between taking the option or not taking it. The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544-1630), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England who, in order to rotate the use of his horses, offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door--or taking none at all."

Re:Caveat Emptor

[JoelKatz]

"Honestly, Apple has not attempted to deceive anyone on this issue, and they make it clear that service is with AT&T only. If you don't want to be locked-in with AT&T, then don't buy an iPhone. Period. If you still must absolutely have a class-action lawsuit, then do it against the Steve Jobs backdating accounting scandal."

If, hypothetically speaking, it comes out that Apple deliberately engineered the update to brick modded phones while claiming that this was just a possible outcome that might happen despite no effort on their part to make it happen, will you take back your claim that Apple has not attempted to deceive anyone?

Apple has great products

[SpaghettiPattern]

Apple has great products. Which I want to pay for to own and to do with then whatever I am pleased to.

I say Apple should go down this time because they behave like bastards.

Having said that, I question the sanity of people rushing in to buy a USD500+ iPhone knowing it's blocked, relying on 3rd party software for unblocking and expect Apple to own up. It's not that you are deprived of essential things in life by NOT owning an iPhone.

Re:Apple has great products

[stewbacca]

The problem with your statement is that many of us did rush out and buy a $500 iPhone, but MOST of us don't care that it is tethered to AT&T and MOST of us will never add a third party app to it on our own. See, only on slashdot does this become an issue: the land of the

For the record, I moved back to the States in August and needed a new cell phone, so I don't consider my purchase to be a "rush" job. It just happened to be available at the time I needed a new phone, and I wasn't already locked in to some other contract. See, this is the REAL reason people are miffed. They got suckered into lengthy Verizon contracts and shitty phones 1.2 years ago and are shifting the blame to Apple and AT&T. I find it VERY difficult to believe the average cell phone consumer can discern the service quality between AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. If anything, AT&T in the two months I've used them, have the best online tool to pay bills and I have had zero service interruptions. I've been with Sprint and Verizon before, and AT&T has been better so far, but it doesn't really matter, because "better" when it comes to crappy all around is vaguely relative.

Re:Apple has great products

[bigstrat2003]

but MOST of us don't care that it is tethered to AT&T Keeping a market competitive is something anyone should care about. Now, the iPhone hardly represents a majority of cell phones available, so it doesn't matter that it's AT&T-only, there's no monopoly here. However, if it were to become that way (I realize this is far-fetched, just suppose), then there would be a real problem going on. Anyone and everyone should want their market to be competitive, if you don't care, you're the fool.

Re:Apple has great products

[SanityInAnarchy]

I say Apple should go down this time because they behave like bastards.

Only this time?

Apple locks you down way more than MS. The only reason they get away with it is that they actually make good products, so for the most part, people are happy with Apple as a monopoly (where it is), whereas everyone needs to get away from MS as fast as they can.

Re:Apple has great products

[hawk]

The only reason they get away with it is that they actually make good products, so for the most part, people are happy with Apple as a monopoly (where it is), And where would that be?

Ipod's are hardly a monopoly, and itunes has thriving competitors.

hawk

Re:Apple has great products

[SanityInAnarchy]

Ipod's are hardly a monopoly

Sure, if Windows is hardly a monopoly. There are reasonable arguments that both have sufficient competition that they shouldn't be considered monopolies, and, I think, reasonable arguments that neither really has sufficient competition that there's a real choice of moving off one, onto another.

Does iTunes work with any other player? Does the iTunes Music Store work with any other player?

Even if it's not a complete monopoly, my point is that Apple does far more lock-in, DRM, avoiding standards, and so on, than Microsoft ever does. Or rather, they are more extreme about it -- not being a complete monopoly, they have far less opportunity to do these things.

And thus, my point is that were Apple the dominant OS vendor, or the dominant in any field, they'd be even more proprietary and anticompetitive than Microsoft is -- in fact, they already are. The only real advantage would be, the Apple stuff would work. It would actually be a good product, without there having to be sufficient competition and years of R&D and beta testing on the public before they have a kinda sorta OK product.

Re:Apple has great products

[karbin]

I find it VERY difficult to believe the average cell phone consumer can discern the service quality between AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc.

I live two miles from downtown in a densely residential area in the 4th largest city in the country(Houston) and at my home I have exactly no service from AT&T and Five bars from T-Mobile(both GSM) Believe it or not, I can tell the difference without any special training or tools. So I unlocked my iphone to work the T-mobile and turned down the update. Would I like to have double tap space for a period and itunes wifi store? Of course. Do I want that more than being able to take calls from my home? Of course not. People who are tech savvy enough to unlock their iphone but not tech savvy enough to read many warnings about what will happen if they update the firmware deserve what's coming to them.

Got a little offtopic there, my bad

Re:Apple has great products

[stewbacca]

I agree totally that people who are tech savvy enough to unlock their iPhones but aren't smart enough to heed warnings get what they deserve. I didn't even think about the scenario you described either. In your case, instead of forcing you down the road of unlocking your phone, I wish AT&T and/or Apple would refund your money. I live in San Antonio (AT&T World HQ) and not surprisingly, I have coverage from here are the way to Dallas without interruption. I haven't been down to Houston yet, so maybe there are big gaping coverage holes that way.

Re:Apple has great products

[hawk]

Sure, if Windows is hardly a monopoly. There are reasonable arguments that both have sufficient competition that they shouldn't be considered monopolies, No. Windows *is* a monopoly by any defini9tion used by economists or the law, save for a hyper-technical definition.

Ipod, however, may well be the largest player, but they don't control a majority of the market, let alone control the market.

More importantly, I've seen no (serious) allegation that they're using market power. Rather, people simply like what they offer, and buy that.

Does iTunes work with any other player? Does the iTunes Music Store work with any other player? Without a monopoly or use of market power, these are just plain irrelevant.

Even if it's not a complete monopoly, my point is that Apple does far more lock-in, DRM, avoiding standards, and so on, than Microsoft ever does. Or rather, they are more extreme about it -- not being a complete monopoly, they have far less opportunity to do these things. And not being a monopoly at all, this just doesn't matter.

And thus, my point is that were Apple the dominant OS vendor, or the dominant in any field, they'd be even more proprietary and anticompetitive than Microsoft is -- in fact, they already are No. This assumption is where the problem is. Apple would have no choice but to function differently if it were to become a monopoly. What is acceptable, even desirable, for a smaller player is neither legal, nor likely the optimal strategy, as a monopolist.

Furthermore, given its products, apple dominating the market is no more likely than Cadillac doing so. Generally (perhaps always), you can't dominate a market and obtain a monopoly from the high end. Apple lost it's interest in the lower end years ago.

hawk

Re:Apple has great products

[SanityInAnarchy]

No. Windows *is* a monopoly by any defini9tion used by economists or the law, save for a hyper-technical definition.

Economists and the law are irrelevant without a good understanding of the technical world.

And Windows is nowhere near a monopoly, for example, on servers -- there, I believe they enjoy less than half the markit, the rest being dominated by Unix. It's been awhile since I looked, though.

Even on the desktop, there are alternatives -- Mac, Linux, even BeOS. Not for serious amounts of marketshare, but these are the arguments which Microsoft used to win their case -- or at least stall it until Bush was elected.

Ipod, however, may well be the largest player, but they don't control a majority of the market, let alone control the market.

Everyone I know who's bothered to get a portable music player recently has gotten an iPod. The first question often asked when considering Linux is "Will it work with my iPod?"

What's more, there is absolutely no competition for the very large iPod accessory market. As far as I know, if you buy, for example, a boombox with a little slot on the top, into which you can put an iPod, no other player will work with it in the same way. The spec is supposedly open, but then, OpenXML is supposedly open.

Without a monopoly or use of market power, these are just plain irrelevant....
No. This assumption is where the problem is. Apple would have no choice but to function differently if it were to become a monopoly. What is acceptable, even desirable, for a smaller player is neither legal, nor likely the optimal strategy, as a monopolist.

Yet, there are plenty of smaller players who play nice, with open standards. I see no reason why being a monopoly or not has anything to do with how a company should behave.

Also, I imagine that most of the people who bought iPods could care less whether Apple had a monopoly or not, because they make good products. That is essentially my point -- they have enough lock-in that I would stay away, monopoly or not. But they also are good enough products that monopoly and lock-in become irrelevant -- the reason people hate MS is not the monopoly, it's the combination of a monopoly and a product which sucks enough that without a monopoly, it would've died a long time ago.

Bloody idiots.

[ciw42]

This lawsuit is just absurd.

OK, so I'm with everyone else hoping that before long the practice of locking phones to specific networks gets outlawed, but in this particular case, Apple haven't done anything wrong.

They are only responsible for providing updates which work with their software as supplied, and not software and iPhones which have been hacked specifically against Apple's advice, to get them working on other networks.

If your phone gets bricked by an Apple update after you've unlocked it, then it's entirely you fault. No-one else's. You did something that you knew full well at the time you shouldn't have done, and let's face it, it's not a simple process, so there can be no possible claim that you didn't know the consequences of your actions, and if you didn't understand this process and the implications, then you're even more of a fool for doing it. You've learned valuable lesson here - don't mess with things you don't understand. You immediately voided your warranty, again something you were fully aware that you'd be doing, and began using it in a way it was never intended or designed to be used, so you're not entitled to support. And now you've came out of it looking like a cock. With no phone. You bloody idiot.

Re:Bloody idiots.

[fermion]

if we accept your premis
oping that before long the practice of locking phones to specific networks gets outlawed
The you conclusion
Apple haven't done anything wrong.
while true for some limited view of wrong, does not follow from the premis.

I would say if apple has done nothing wrong, then laws regulated equipment and service providers are not necessarily needed. Like so many other things, if the market will bear a practice, then obviously people find value in the practice. For instance, cheap stores often have draconian rules to keep prices cheap, and people still find value in the store.

The lesson learned here is that Apple is increasingly less end use centric and more strategic partner centered. What this means is that I can no longer trust Apple to do what is best for me as an end user, and, as the systems are closed, can no longer buy the products with the same confidence. It is not so much a misunderstanding of the process, but a misunderstanding of the shift from Apple Computer, Inc to Apple, Inc. From a company that had a policy of not putting end user products at risk, by, for example, developing anti piracy technology that could diaable a users machine, to a company that would put end users at risk by not only developing but implementing such technology.

I tell you this has had an effect on me. I was on the verge of buying another mac, but now I do not know. The switch to intel and the added 'security' that entailed. The bricking of the iphone. Who knows what is next? Pretty machines are not enough. I need certainty that Apple will not one day disable my mac because I do not have a .mac account.

Re:Bloody idiots.

[bigstrat2003]

If your phone gets bricked by an Apple update after you've unlocked it, then it's entirely you fault. No-one else's. Not if, as people have claimed, Apple deliberately caused the update to do that. This would be difficult to prove, but I really don't put it past Apple, so it's possible. If Apple deliberately bricked people's phones, they should pay.

In addition, I hope this suit goes through even IF Apple didn't deliberately brick people's phones, as it could help move the cause of mandated unlocking forward.

You've learned valuable lesson here - don't mess with things you don't understand. You immediately voided your warranty, again something you were fully aware that you'd be doing As someone else pointed out, the warranty should not be void for all things because you messed with the software. If the solder on the circuit board turns to dust, that's poor workmanship, has nothing to do with the software, and should be covered regardless of any software modifications you've made.

DMCA Confusion

[Nymz]

Except mobile phone vendor lockin is against the law.

Is it? I think the current situation is as follows:

• The DMCA has an exemption for users to unlock their own phone
• But the DMCA still prevents sharing of code that circumvents locks
• So while you may unlock it, you must be able to do it all on your own
• Leaving Apple free to use DRM, to make exercising your rights very difficult

Re:DMCA Confusion

[Ibanez]

The only case about third parties unlocking then selling was settled, and an injunction issued as part of the settlement, as agreed upon by the parties involved. The court issued the injunction at the parties' request, not on it's own behalf. So as of now, the only thing set in stone is the DMCA exemption. Whether a third party can do it or not has not been decided in court.

Re:DMCA Confusion

[GStyle98]

But the question is more of 'Why does the DMCA have an exemption for the unlocking of cell phones?' Personally, I like to think that these DMCA exemptions are made with a purpose or reason behind them and not just chosen randomly out of a hat. Otherwise the DMCA might have not had an unlocking exemption and instead had an exemption on allowing for the free distribution of bunnies or whatever other soft, cuddly animal one pulls out of a hat these days.

So what was the purpose/reason behind the cell phone unlocking exemption? It might've been to given consumers more freedom in choosing a wireless provider and prevent economic abuse of a provider/manufacturer variety. Even if you legally pay out your AT&T contract and want to switch to T-Mobile, you can't while maintaining an up-to-date iPhone.

This case will be interesting if they approach it from the DMCA exemption purpose angle. It's definitely the first case of its kind in relation to this unlocking exemption (that I'm aware of). Alternatively, we can wait 6-12 month and have better 'iPhone' clones that are unlocked like the Meizu M8 (which I hope isn't vaporware) :)

Re:DMCA Confusion

[sl3xd]

You're missing one detail:
* The DMCA only means that a company can't sue you for unlocking the phone. And by unlocking, I mean making the phone work with other cell phone carriers.

* There's nothing saying that a company has to allow a consumer to program its device.

Let's take a non-Apple example, a video game console. There's absolutely no doubt that these are programmable devices.

* Microsoft doesn't have to allow you to code for the Xbox 360 (and in fact doesn't, unless you pay for an SDK, whether it is the consumer or pro devel tools).
* Nintendo doesn't have to allow you to code for the Wii, and similarly doesn't allow anybody to do it unless they've met criteria set by the manufacturer.
* Sony doesn't have to allow development on its box either; but they do allow you to install Linux on their machine and program from there. I don't know if they require a developer to purchase an SDK if they want to do development outside PS3 Linux.

Basically, people who want to sue because they aren't allowed to program a device they purchased have nothing to support them. It's more or less standard practice for any embedded device.

Re:DMCA Confusion

[SeaFox]

# The DMCA has an exemption for users to unlock their own phone
# But the DMCA still prevents sharing of code that circumvents locks
# So while you may unlock it, you must be able to do it all on your own
# Leaving Apple free to use DRM, to make exercising your rights very difficult

This is the problem with the DMCA exemption. It doesn't give consumers any exemption, really. Most people are not EE's or software programmers. So to unlock their phones, they must purchase/recieve the lock from someone else, which is NOT allowed under the DMCA. The barrier to entry is too high.

To use a fitting analogy, it would be like the U.S. government not allowing people to leave the country and travel overseas unless they built their own boat, and its illegal to buy a boat from a shipbuilder or download blueprints over the internet. They might as well just tell everyone they have to stay home.

Different than everyone else?

[mgkimsal2]

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.

Re:Different than everyone else?

[b0s0z0ku]

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?

???

8830 is a Verizon/Sprint device that's CDMA and GSM. It only supports the non-USA CDMA bands, so it won't work on either AT&T or Tmobile USA, but it DOES come unlocked from Sprint so you can use any SIM you want in Europe.

-b.

Re:Ah, good ol' Zonk and his dupes...

[speaker of the truth]

That's not a dupe:
article #1 - people are talking about a class action lawsuit.
article #2 - the class action lawsuit is filed with the courts.

See how those two are different? I know you're a coward, but try to show a bare minimum of intelligence.

Why is the iPhone any different than a computer?

[LwPhD]

I really see no true difference between using your iPhone (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) and hooking your landline (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) through your computer's modem so you can use a software phone and answering machine. Also, how is it any different from using your laptop with a cellular card (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) to get internet connectivity on the go?

To my layman eyes, the law in this area seems ad hoc and gives special attention to handheld cellular devices. Fortunately, it seems likely that unlocking is legal. I seriously hope this case will be the first of many to push regulation of companies that maliciously sabotage their customers after they bought the product to maximize profit.

I'm currently a very satisfied Mac user (I'm writing this post from a 3 year old PowerBook G4 17" that still runs like a spotted assed ape) but these sorts of moves sour me on AAPL. I'll give them a few chances to mess up and be forgiven, but as a computer savvy person who's primary love of Apple is for how they've beautifully wrapped what's under the hood, I can just as easily go right back to Linux where I came from. After all, that's what I use on the desktop and in the server rack already. Why is it, just when Microsoft seems to have shot itself in the foot with Vista and controlling what users do with their hardware, that Apple jumps right of the cliff with them?

Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they fight

[sirwired]

Apple bricking the phone is not illegal, nor should it be. When Apple sold the phone, they were crystal clear that its only supported use was with AT&T and Apple-approved apps. Those that disagree with the policy should not have bought the phone.

Now, if Apple was suing folks for unlocking the phone, that would have been something else (and certainly brings to the forefront debates on shrinkwrap, reverse engineering rights, etc.) but they have not. The proper response to this bricking is another hack, not a lawsuit.

Apple is also perfectly within their rights to not give warranty service to those that modded their phone. The Magnuson-Moss Act only provides protection to those whose aftermarket bits did not cause the phone to die. If these folks had not modded their phone, the update would not have killed it. The act was meant to protect those that say, bought ordinary aftermarket headphones... automatically denying warranty service for THAT would be a blatant violation of the Act. For folks that would avail themselves of the Act, even a liberal interpretation would mean they would have to prove that Apple's update deliberately disabled the phone. Given how many things that can go wrong with code updates, I would be surprised if Apple simply just did not test on an unlocked phone, and the process just happens to brick the thing. Apple probably bricked many legit phones during their testing process until they got the bugs worked out...

SirWired

this COULD change alot...

[ItsLenny]

If they FULLY win this suit... by which I mean apple has to RELEASE their phones unlocked that would mean that the large sum of money that (I'm sure) was paid to Apple to have the phone only be on their network in the first place would have been a waste...

would they owe that money back to AT&T? or is it just lost money since it's not "Apple's Fault"...

also after seeing this trial would any other company ever waste money paying to make a phone 'only available on their network'?

just some hypothetical questions...

oh... and... what if their were no hypothetical questions?

Re:this COULD change alot...

[maxwell demon]

would they owe that money back to AT&T? or is it just lost money since it's not "Apple's Fault"...

I guess that fully depends on the relative quality of Apple's and AT&T's lawyers.

Re:this COULD change alot...

[b0s0z0ku]

also after seeing this trial would any other company ever waste money paying to make a phone 'only available on their network'?

That would be a GOOD thing -- people would pay full price for a phone and get lower monthly rates, rather than subsidizing others' phones even if they bought one from outside the phone company. For those who can't afford up front, I'm sure the phone cos will have leased or installment plans. This would be a big win for consumers, especially in the GSM market!

-b.

iPhone in Europe

[d3m0nCr4t]

I wonder how Apple will sell their iPhone in Europe. It is forbidden by the European consumer laws to sell a phone where you force users to a certain provider. I'm really curious.

Re:iPhone in Europe

[maubp]

I was under the impression that was only true in Belgium; for most of Europe some phone companies DO give out locked phones, which you can usually get unlocked unofficially...

Re:iPhone in Europe

[TobascoKid]

which you can usually get unlocked unofficially...

And officially as well, it's just that that the unofficial unlockers are usually cheaper.

Re:iPhone in Europe

[Fatal67]

The same way as in the US.

You can use it on any carrier you want, in an unsupported fashion.

Modifying your phone and then applying software upgrades may destroy the phone, but you are legally within your rights to do that if you wish.

Being legally allowed to do something does not protect you from the outcome of your actions.

Re:iPhone in Europe

[LarsG]

I'm not familiar with the details in all of Europe, but the rules are as I understand fairly consistent.

All carriers must allow unlocked phones on their network, as long as you have a valid SIM card for that carrier. Just like you can hook any device to your POTS connection, as long as you have a contract with a landline telco.

Carriers can sell subsidised locked phones, but the maximum lock time is between 12-24 months depending on country. After that time, the carrier must provide an unlock code to the subscriber in order to unlock the phone.

For Apple to stay within eu regulations, you will see legally unlocked phones on eBay no less than 12 months after the iPhone goes on sale in Europe.

Re:Bloody Apple fucking fanbois

[ciw42]

You moron.

I'm not an Apple fanboy. I don't own any Apple products, but I do know software and embedded development rather well (after 20+ years experience) and I also like to think I have sensible and objective opinions on matters like this. Something you obviously don't.

Oh, and stop swearing, it makes you come across as borderline illiterate and definitely someone in their early teens with a lot to learn about the world.

Re:Ah, good ol' Zonk and his dupes...

[debilo]

I know you're a coward, but try to show a bare minimum of intelligence.

I am glad to report that I, for one, show a constant bare minimum of intelligence pretty much all the time, and I demand a cookie.

Did anyone else read "bickering" instead of .....

[3seas]

... bricking?

Perhaps we can build a house with such bricks....

Re:Ah, good ol' Zonk and his dupes...

[speaker of the truth]

I am not a coward, however I refrain from posting such information indiscriminately. There's a difference. See slashdot calls you an anonymous coward, therefore its perfectly alright for me to poke a bit of fun at you. You can also call me a coward, but people might not take it quite as lightly. Now you could poke fun at me using "speaker of the" (as others have done in the past).

Lockin won't fly in Europe

[Morgaine]

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.

Re:Lockin won't fly in Europe

[ciw42]

I'm actually based in Europe and am fully aware of the differences between regulations here and in the US.

The changes being made by people unlocking their iPhones are not however limited to the data on the SIM, they are actual changes to the firmware installed on the machine itself, if they were just SIM changes then it would be a different story.

Re:Lockin won't fly in Europe

[ahertz]

Do you mean that wireless providers in Europe are explicitly required to unlock your phone (if you ask, for some fee)? Or that they're explicitly required to provide software updates for unlocked phones? Otherwise, I don't see how the situation is any different in the US than it is in Europe.

In the US, you're perfectly free to unlock your phone. In fact, there's a specific exemption to the DMCA [PDF] allowing cell phone handset unlocking. You certainly can unlock GSM phones here, or buy unlocked phones (I've done both).

So, are wireless providers required to explicitly offer an unlocking service, or just to not arrest you if you do unlock your phone? The latter is essentially the case in the US.

Re:Lockin won't fly in Europe

[sl3xd]

And what of hacking phones for new software? There's absolutely no doubt that a video game console is a programmable device.

Microsoft is still allowed to keep the Xbox closed to development unless you pay for an SDK. You can't publish your software unless Microsoft approves of it. Microsoft can change the Xbox so that anything you've done no longer works.

Nintendo can (and does) do the same thing with its Wii, GameCube, N64, SNES, NES..

You can't sue Sony because you want to hack the firmware on their Blu-ray player, or that their lastest firmware release bricked your disc player because you added software on it.

You can't sue Toshiba for bricking an HD DVD player after you hacked its firmware (their HD DVD players are essentially Intel PC's).

You can't sue TiVo because they don't allow you to put your hacked software on their device.

Re:Lockin won't fly in Europe

[TobascoKid]

So, are wireless providers required to explicitly offer an unlocking service, or just to not arrest you if you do unlock your phone?

They have to explicitly unlock the phone. The exact details (such as how much it costs to unlock) vary from state to state and provider to provider.

Apple is the new Microsoft

[ZoneGray]

It's pretty clear, Apple is the new Microsoft. They're so freaking successful that everybody figures they must be cheating. They're starting to leverage their proprietary assets. And they're becoming the company everybody loves to hate, just like MS in the '90's.

The difference is, Apple is making some f'ing awesome products, and people are falling over each other to buy them. Compare products: iPhone or Windows 98? Ever see somebody show off their Windows upgrade to a girl at a bar?

Some people just hate success. The fuss over locked iPhones has just taken this crowd to a new low of childishness. Where were you losers the last ten years when the practice became commonplace? Clue alert: Verizon sells Verizon-branded phones that.. surprise... only work on Verizon's network!!! OMG!!! Where's the outrage? Instead, the losers wait until there's a phone they actually want and suddenly discover a heretofore unknown principle to stand on.

Apple/ATT bundling (if it's even a bad thing) is a rich country's problem, and the whining over the iPhone is truly pathetic, like a rich girl who wanted a different color BMW for her birthday. This used to be a country that valued freedom, now people go whining to Big Brother to fix every little problem in their lives. Pathetic. At the rate we're going, in 100 years Americans will all be working on assembly lines making electronic doodahs for the wealthy Chinese.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[stewbacca]

The difference is, Apple is making some f'ing awesome products, and people are falling over each other to buy them.

And it is such a HUGE difference, that I doubt Apple will ever garner as much hatred as Microsoft. It would be one thing if Apple continued the trend in their behavior AND offered crappy products, like Microsoft does, but Apple still puts awesome products first, profit and bottom-line second.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[Jaxoreth]

Compare products: iPhone or Windows 98? Ever see somebody show off their Windows upgrade to a girl at a bar?

That's what fucking pisses me off about this. It doesn't take any sophistication to recognize that the iPhone is a really cool device and be willing to spend $600 (or now only $400) on one. But telling someone that I won't tolerate the iPhone's built-in defects and I'm waiting for something that's cool and does what I want doesn't get me laid. Thanks for nothing, Apple.

Maybe if I compromise and get an iPod Touch I can at least get to second base.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[jumperboy]

Where were you losers the last ten years when the practice became commonplace? Clue alert: Verizon sells Verizon-branded phones that.. surprise... only work on Verizon's network!!! OMG!!! Where's the outrage? Instead, the losers wait until there's a phone they actually want and suddenly discover a heretofore unknown principle to stand on.

Well... isn't that kind of the point? People are outraged. But, where before they could choose a lackluster phone from an offering of many lackluster phones, here's a desirable phone not available for their carrier. This forces them to ponder, "Why is my phone tied to a carrier in the first place?" The lightbulb goes on over their heads, and they collectively cry "We're sick and tired and we're not going to take it any more!" Realizing that's merely symbolic, they hire a lawyer.

I guarantee you, Apple could renig on (or renegotiate) the AT&T deal, unlock their phone, and dominate the market. Locking the iPhone to a single carrier was the stupidest thing Apple has done in a long, long time. What, did they think none of the carriers would offer it? Hindsight is 20/20, but people want this phone, and they'll leave carriers to get it.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[bigstrat2003]

The hell they do. The iPhone is a case in point, profit is clearly more important to them than having a truly awesome product, or else they wouldn't restrict it to AT&T. Their product would be better for it. Presumably AT&T has subsidized the iPhone to get the exclusivity (otherwise there'd be no incentive), thus we have Apple putting profits ahead of making an awesome product.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[b0s0z0ku]

But telling someone that I won't tolerate the iPhone's built-in defects and I'm waiting for something that's cool and does what I want doesn't get me laid.

Showing a cracked iphone with most of the defects fixed (and iBrate installed) may very well get you laid.

-b.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[a.d.trick]

This used to be a country that valued freedom, now people go whining to Big Brother to fix every little problem in their lives. Pathetic.

Why should Big Brother be limited to the government? When you look at corporations the government doesn't actually look so bad after all.

• Corporations are essentially dictatorships or oligarchies. The power is focused among a few people at the top and there are precious few checks to that power (besides the law, of course).
• Your government in the US is quite transparent (relatively speaking, I mean). Try to get any information about the internals of a corporation and you'll hit a brick wall pretty fast. Unless something massive happens, your government isn't getting Big Brotherish anytime soon because there's no good in snooping on everyone if everyone knows what you're up to.
• Which has more impact on regular people's life. The government collects taxes, and enforces a few laws. They're important, but not too difficult to forget about them. For better or for worse, corporations are the way most people earn a living, if they lose that they aren't going anywhere very fast. They spend a large portion of there lives working for corporations.

Ultimately, all a corporations care about is more power (which usually takes the form of money). There is no exception. Laws are built so that gaining power at the expense of society is generally undesirable to them and we use the government to enforce that. Sometimes the government fails (e.g. Microsoft and anti-trust) and the corporation will continue its abuse.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[ToasterMonkey]

But, where before they could choose a lackluster phone from an offering of many lackluster phones, here's a desirable phone not available for their carrier. This forces them to ponder, "Why is my phone tied to a carrier in the first place?" That's quite a stretch. It's fairly obvious Apple and Apple alone is taking the heat for this (on slashdot anyway, the outside world doesn't really care). The single carrier deal wont last forever. Doesn't it make more sense for Apple to have a partner while breaking into the cell phone business?
If I _personally_ were to create a cell phone with whizbang new features, I would go into the market with a strong partnership myself.

Hindsight is 20/20, but people want this phone, and they'll leave carriers to get it. So... What you're saying is that people really aren't as concerned as a couple angry slashdotters make them all out to be? Or, when they sign that contract to get the phone they MUST have, they're pissed as hell, but do it anyway. Dude, I'm pissed as hell signing ANY phone contract, even to get a cheapo phone. Why don't we rail on cellular companies instead? That makes more sense than blaming Apple for a practice it didn't even remotely invent.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[ZoneGray]

>> all a corporations care about is more power (which usually takes the form of money)

No it ALWAYS takes the form of money. Money is NOT power. Corporations can't kill people or throw them in jail. Governments can. That's the only real power.

Wealth is created, but political power is finite. Freedom (the opposite of political power) is finite. Once you give it to government, you can't make more to replace it. The only way to get it back is to reduce the power of government, which rarely happens peacefully. So I tend to be very sensitive about giving government power in the first place. And I think it's foolish to extend governmental power over a frivolous electronic gizmo like an iPhone.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[macs4all]

Do you remember? The iPhone has some UNIQUE features (visual email, and a freakin' browser that's worth a sh** so people actually USE it!) that required changes in the carrier-side software (visual email), and a "liberalization" over nearly EVERY previous data-pricing plan, to fully "realize" the product.

Not to mention, Apple had alread committed (and wisely so) to using the WORLD-standard GSM. Their negotiations with Verizon hint that they may have had a phone circuit in development that was compatible with their antiquated cellphone network (remember, we don't make phone calls over EV-DO). So the question that is begged is: Are there ANY phones in the U.S. that CAN be used with EVERY carrier, from a practical, technical sense? Because of some of the fundamental differences (still) in frequencies, modulation techniques, packet structures, et frickin' CETERA, can someone actually design a phone that doesn't look like this that would satisfy the requirement to be TRULY "Unlocked".

An "unlocked" phone is fine in EUrope and other places where GSM is nearly ubiquitous; but in the U.S., it's not as happy of a situation. But even in EUrope, if a carrier doesn't want to mess with the infrastructure changes necessary to implement visual voicemail, all the "unlocking" will NOT bring that feature back.

Period.

New Twist on an Old Trick

[stewbacca]

the lawyer who's been soliciting plaintiffs all week for a case against Apple.

Man, and attorneys used to just chase ambulances.

Apple could have avoided this

[jdc180]

If the software in the phone is in an unknown state, then don't allow the upgrade to run.

Apple obviously wanted to brick the phones. Just about every other upgrade i've ever run checks the bits it's upgrading to make sure it's good to go.

Re:Apple could have avoided this

[mark-t]

That's all very well and good, but it's not too hard to imagine cases where an installed application (such as a firmware upgrade app) would not be capable of detecting that it had been unlocked.

Re:Apple could have avoided this

[MttJocy]

That is arguable, and nobody could complain about it if they did no matter how much they wanted something that was in the update, after all they were clearly informed that they would be violating their warranty by modifying the software, as such when they went ahead and did so anyway apple had absolutely 0 requirement to offer them further software support (which of course includes upgrades of any kind). I am sure someone would still start moaning but then I am sure the response would be a more resounding tough luck than there seams to be right now, if anything apple would have been acting to protect customers who tampered with the devices by refusing to allow upgrading.

Re:Apple could have avoided this

[b0s0z0ku]

seams to be right now, if anything apple would have been acting to protect customers who tampered with the devices by refusing to allow upgrading.

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.

Re:Apple could have avoided this

[mtmra70]

Any PR is good PR.

Re:Apple could have avoided this

[Threni]

> That's all very well and good, but it's not too hard to imagine cases where an installed application (such as a firmware upgrade app) would not be
> capable of detecting that it had been unlocked.

Then how could it have `bricked`? Either the code has been altered and the checksum wrong, or the software is ok and an update won't `brick` it.

Re:Apple could have avoided this

[mark-t]

Maybe the update doesn't actively brick the phone if it's been unlocked... the device failing to operate could simply be the result of the unlock being incompatible with a firmware update. I've seen firmware updates inadvertently brick modified devices before... requiring such devices to be reset to factory defaults before being usable again (if the modification was just software based, this usually just involved holding in a special reset switch on the device for a few seconds until the device's OS reboots. A switch recessed inside of a pinhole somewhere on the device that you can never accidentally press). I would not be surprised if the iPhone was similar, as I've seen no indication whatsoever that you cannot, at least in theory, unbrick the iPhone, only that updated firmware would not work on an unlocked iPhone (which renders it as useless as any other computer with no OS installed).

Kids today..

[jcr]

I voided the warranty on dozens of 128K and 512K Macs in my day, and I knew damned well that if I broke one, I was on my own. The warranty is contingent on certain terms. If the user breaches those terms and the device breaks, it's nobody's fault but his own.

-jcr

Re:Kids today..

[HuguesT]

Come on, this is not the same issue.

Here people have modded their iPhones, they were still working 100% fine until Apple released an "update" that bricked them. This is futile, people who do not want to party with AT&T will find a way to use their own phone the way they want.

Apple is too greedy, this lawsuit is for their own good. Plus they are stupid, the business model they currently have will not work in Europe.

Re:Kids today..

[jcr]

they were still working 100% fine until Apple released an "update" that bricked them

If they were rendered unable to accept the update, they weren't "working 100% fine", QED.

-jcr

Re:Kids today..

[MttJocy]

I've done similar myself with Sky+ boxes (They have a USB port on the back of them but the software does not allow them to be used for much) I modified the firmware on mine to allow it to be used for connection and control by the PC, including transferring recordings (decoded) to the PC. Granted I managed to brick two sky+ boxes while developing it, and 1 out of the 10 others I tried to upgrade for people to have the same functionality (although I made it clear this was a risk before attempting the process). But I am not going to sue sky over it, nor am I going to sue them if they change their system such that my modified firmware no longer works on their transmissions (they normally update automatically but naturally I disabled that given the modifications).

I just don't understand people complaining when they do such things and it goes wrong, none of these sort of procedures are simple or something one can do by accident, they are something you do deliberately and knowingly. It's fun to experiment, but the consequences are your own.

Re:Kids today..

[ORBAT]

Or could it be that the update was designed to break modded phones, not the other way around?

Re:Kids today..

[HuguesT]

This is a straw man I think

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

      1. Person A has position X.
      2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
      3. Person B attacks position Y.
      4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

In this instance, I asserted that in general modded iPhones worked fine, in the sense that people who applied the modding were by and large happy with the results, i.e. a working phone and associated iPhone goodness.

You asserted in response that the phones were in fact not working fine, because Apple could, and did, release a piece of software that detected the modding and made the phones non-functionnal.

This clearly does not address the fact that modding was by and large safe and that Apple decided to play nasty with the modders, to the apparent expense of some non-modders too. Apple is either incompetent or plain evil in this case, choosing to cause monetary harm to their own customers for greed.

So you changed an informal definition of "working fine" to suit your argument, which I cannot follow.

Re:Bloody Apple fucking fanbois

[E IS mC(Square)]

Oh, and stop swearing, it makes you come across as borderline illiterate and definitely someone in their early teens with a lot to learn about the world.

Then Lewis Black must be a teen borderline illiterate?

Whos fault is it

[WarJolt]

The software is LICENSED to you. You don't OWN it. You OWN the hardware. Without the licensed software you have an expensive paper weight, but when you start violating software license agreements your license can be terminated.

You have a license to use your car. If your license is terminated legally you can't drive. Now your car is a big hunk of metal since you can't go anywhere.

If your software license is terminated you can't use the software. Congratz you own an expensive paper weight, unless you can figure out how to run Linux on there.

It's not apples responsibility. I don't think this is good press for Apple.

I read the license agreement. Says you can't modify the software.

Re:Whos fault is it

[mr_matticus]

And you can still use your iPhone, just not on a cellular network and not with the latest software.

Apple was never any better.

[Zombie Ryushu]

Apple was never any better than MS and I have no love for them, in fact, they are worse, they have always been worse, and the fact they are worse, is the reason Windows is Dominant today. Never forget, never ever forget the reason Dos prevailed, Lock in, and that lock in translated to one killer application: Doom. Doom, not Windows, created the x86 world we live in. Had Doom come out on Mac First, we would live in a Mac world.

Apple has always been the worst about lock-in. There were once some old variations of the Mac you could only plug in Mac approved speakers, microphones, printers, etc etc etc etc. EVERYTHING was proprietary. Well. This thing about Mac Computers being compatible with everything, is new. I don't trust Apple, I never have, I never will, I don't trust MS, I never have, I never will because MS is moving in the same direction Mac was in the mid 90s. "Approved" Speakers, Network cards that don't work, USB Peripherials that sit there and smile at you. The list goes on. I vote Linux.

Re:Apple was never any better.

[dreamchaser]

I hope you're making a joke and I just missed it, with regards to Doom. The gamer market was so very, very tiny when Doom came out. What drove x86 marketshare was cheap "IBM Compatible" clones, and applications like Lotus 1-2-3. Had Apple not shut down the Mac clonemakers we might live in an all Apple world now. Having had Doom come out on Apples would not have changed much. The initial driver of PC dominance was not home machines, it was business machines.

That being said, I agree that Apple has never been any better than MS, and in some cases has been worse. They are both profit driven companies. That's not evil, it just is what it is.

Re:Apple was never any better.

[ZoneGray]

And during the years when Apple practiced lock-in most thoroughly, they were the least successful.

Their current success owes a great deal to their embrace of free software and open standards. Their hardware now runs most any OS. Mac hardware makes a great paltform for Windows or Linux, albeit at a small price premium. It's a price I happily pay, just to avoid a commoditized box with Taiwanese styling, engineered to hit the lowest price point.

The problem with having every part open and interchangeable is that everything becomes commoditized, and everything gets designed for low price. Linux is great... but it's basically a kit, not a product. Same with a Windows PC, to a lesser extent. But a Mac is a product. You buy a Mac, you pretty much know what you're getting. It turns out that people who don't spend their entire lives installing OS's actually like that. And Apple is selling them by the boatloads.

Meanwhile, Microsoft continues is descent into irrelevance. No amount of proprietary leverage can obfuscate the fact that Vista sort of sucks and nobody really lusts for it. Yes, MS will remain in business and they'll remain profitable, but the MS of the 90's is a memory. I've gone months on my new PC without having to install my 8 year old copy of Office 2000 on my 6 year old copy of XP.

The point being: the market takes its revenge and regulates lock-in far more effectively than people appreciate. Yes, people, there IS justice in the world, it just takes a while.

If Nokia or somebody else can produce an open smartphone that people prefer to the iPhone, they will, and they'll be successful with it. It might take five years, and you may want it in six months. But that's not worth invoking the power of government to try to solve. And when did government solve anything in six months? How long did the Microsoft anti-trust suits drag on, and did they accomplish *anything* for the consumer? Last I checked, Microsoft still sucks.

Re:Apple was never any better.

[ToasterMonkey]

Your whole post must be a joke... Doom? Really?

Re:Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they figh

[suv4x4]

Apple bricking the phone is not illegal, nor should it be. When Apple sold the phone, they were crystal clear that its only supported use was with AT&T and Apple-approved apps.

To be fair they only became crystal clear about the bricking long after people have started patching their phones and several patch providers have been selling "mods" for weeks.

While I agree Apple will probably win a case that tries to prove Apple should support custom mods, still, many people would be discouraged from patching in the first place if they knew in advance.

As a proof to this is the frantic search for "unpatching" mods after Steve announced what will happen after the update.

Also let's not forget the PR effect of this lawsuit. Win or not, this, the 16-bit iMac screens, the deffective nano screens, the freezing Macs, the overheating MacBooks, and so on and so on: those pile together and may turn the tide against Apple.

Apple exists solely because of their solid cult-like fanbase. Should this fanbase turn against them, they're goners.

Re:Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they figh

[sirwired]

And when you break the deed restrictions on your house, the homeowners association is fully within their rights to burn it down, with or without you inside of it.

Well, if you break the deed restrictions on your house, the homeowners association usually can, and sometimes does, put a lien on your house for fines, which must be paid before you can sell it. In some states they can even force a sale.

If you mod your phone and it gets bricked, Apple makes you pay to replace it... not much difference.

SirWired

LIABLE

[fox1324]

I'm usually the last guy to be a grammar nazi, but c'mon it's a different WORD! Liable, not reliable.

/a girl in my business law class made the same error...

Re:Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they figh

[gnasher719]

Apple bricking the phone is not illegal, nor should it be. When Apple sold the phone, they were crystal clear that its only supported use was with AT&T and Apple-approved apps.

To be fair they only became crystal clear about the bricking long after people have started patching their phones and several patch providers have been selling "mods" for weeks. The first poster sounds a bit like he is saying that intentionalbricking would be legal. It most certainly is not. However, I assume that this happened unintentional, and in that case, Apple could only give a warning about this _after_ people had been unlocking their phones and Apple's firmware upgrade was finished and went into testing. Apple didn't anticipate the method for unlocking the iPhone (clearly, if they had known the method, then they would have prevented it from working in the first place), so they couldn't possibly know how this would interact with an upgrade that wasn't written yet.

Go back to Digg...

[Tibor the Hun]

quit posting like an idiot

1. apple did not brick the phones that had 3rd party applications installed. there are many, many people with app.tap whose phones work perfectly fine sans (french for without) those apps.
the phones in question had modified firmware. read up about it to see what the difference is.

2. i don't know anything about warranty laws, so i'll just keep my mouth shut. (write that one down)

If you want to bitch about the iPhone and Apple, bitch about legit things... no iPhone SDK, no "official" way to install useful 3rd party apps, lack of enterprise-support for the device, lack of "open" ringtones etc. Don't complain about things getting borked when you flash modified firmware.

I think what happened is that a lot of n00bs flashed their firmware without knowing what they were actually doing. Apple (or anyone else) should be under no obligation to dance around all deficiently modified firmware chips out there..

Does any mobo manufacturers replace CPUs because of wrong overclock settings?

Re:Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they figh

[mark-t]

Apple probably bricked many legit phones during their testing process until they got the bugs worked out...

Woah, that would be expensive. Why go to all that trouble?

I'm sure that Apple has an iPhone emulator, with which they test these sorts of things.

Testing for the unknown

[Midnight Thunder]

Wasn't it announced *ahead of time* that the upgrade would brick unlocked phones?

That sure sounds like premeditation to me.

Nah, that sounds more like them taking into account that if you do some unsupported random modification, then there is no way for them to know what you did. And if they don't know what you did, how is the testing process going to know what to test for? Private APIs are always going to be changing, since they don't need to take into account third-party applications are using them and if they are they shouldn't be.

If you hack something then you should accept the risks associated with it. Yes I believe Apple should be making the iPhone more open, but until it is anything you do which is not officially supported is at your own risk.

BTW Haven't a number of people come up with solutions to unbrick the iPhone?

Re:Testing for the unknown

[shmlco]

Aren't there quite a few different unlocks? Aren't some even proprietary, in that you pay to get an unlocked phone? How do you know you've found ALL of the unlocking software that's out there? How do you know the version from site A is exactly the same as that found on site B? How do you know that a bunch of people aren't using their own undisclosed methods?

Answer: you don't.

So since there's no way to guarantee there WON'T be a problem, you CYA.

Re:Testing for the unknown

[macs4all]

Offtopic: That's a great sig. Is that a quote, and if so, from who/where?

Re:Testing for the unknown

[shmlco]

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love

Re:Testing for the unknown

[macs4all]

Ok, so now I'm REALLY embarrassed! However, I've slept about 2,000 times since them. Literally.

Thanx!

-Doug

Re:Wow, I must have missed the Gun To Head

[david_thornley]

I must have missed the crucial part where the guy described Apple putting a gun to his head and forcing him to buy an iPhone.

What I missed was the crucial part where the guy described Apple putting a gun to his head and forcing him to update his software. Anybody who knows enough to unlock the phone really should know that, when you modify software in unanticipated ways, you are leaving the standard update path. Since Apple was very clear on not intending the iPhone to have user-modifiable software (a pity, it'd be such a nice platform), it wasn't their responsibility to test on any sort of modified device.

It isn't even a part of the licenses. My computer here runs Ubuntu, and I have a perfect legal right to change almost any of the software. Once I've done that, I'm pretty sure the update service I'm on isn't going to work. Either the updates will fail to apply (which is the right thing to do with software that the user is allowed to change), or they will screw up my system. Why would the iPhone be any different?

unwitting n00bs flashing firmware & liability

[Gary W. Longsine]

Well, it seems to me that Apple could offer a service. If your iPhone is now a brick, maybe they'll engrave your name on it and epoxy it into a sculpture in a park in Silicon Valley somewhere, for a small fee. For a slightly larger fee they'll re-flash the firmware, assuming it's even possible to fix what's broke without opening the case of the phone. If you must open the case and replace a part to fix a bricked iPhone, then it's likely that the cost of repair would exceed the cost of a new device. It also seems that there is some potential liability to be borne by the supplier of the software and instructions for modifying the iPhone. If those fine people were not appropriately careful about warning their victims, uh, customers, the might see some hostility directed their way at some point by people who figure they were misled. They probably won't be sued, though, since they can't fix the underlying issue (locked phones and the broken cell phone industry) nor do they have a mountain of cash to covet.

By the way, when did they stop allowing idiots to post here? I hadn't noticed.

*ducks*

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? -xts

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why is the iPhone any different than a computer

[MttJocy]

Mobile phones are not the only ones using this tactic. VOIP providers are actually engaging in the same behavior in cases, when you take their offers of free/subsidized hardware generally of course and one is still free to go buy any VOIP compatible phone/adapter which is sold directly and use it on any carrier, having said that the same is the case with GSM compatible cell phones you are free to go out and buy unlocked GSM compatible cell phones if you wish.

Would be nice to see one thing change with mobile phones though, I would like to see more stores selling the devices which are available as handset only as such, and they are available nokia for instance will happily cell you a phone from their online store I believe, I can't think of a high street store near me that will sell you a handset as is though the problem here is the lack of the choice for those who want to walk into a store and buy a handset as is with mobiles, most computer stores sell unrestricted VOIP phones as hardware only so why not for mobile phones?

Hacking iPhone not = to requiring .mac service

[olafva]

I need certainty that Apple will not one day disable my mac because I do not have a .mac account.

There's a big difference in hacking the iPhone, knowing full-well it violated the warranty, and
buying a Mac and not using .mac. Surely you see that Apple would have ABSOLUTELY no grounds
legally or commercially to EVER require users to use .mac.

From a Happy iPhone user who considered installing my T-Mobile chip in my iPhone (just as I
did in my Blackberry), but soon recognized it made no sense (violated warranty, future updates
and full functionality)

Re:Question

[argent]

I think the answer would be "yes", if they decide that inserting it where the sun don't shine voids their warranty because of customer abuse.

Would they BE right? I don't know, but they certainly HAVE the right.

Lost cause

[nurb432]

I dont see how Apple can lose this. When you bought the stupid phone, and got your service, you agreed to the limitations set forth by Apple. If you didnt like the license, you shouldnt have agreed to it.

Now, if they were to change the license along the way you can at least have a reason to complain, but come on, you idiots agreed to this upfront.

Apple probably wants this

[imadork]

Am I the only person who thinks that Apple probably does not mind this lawsuit? Apple doesn't seem like the company who would want to sell service tied to one provider anyway, they would either want to sell devices that work with any provider or provide the service themselves. They were likely forced to lock the phones as a condition of getting on anyone's network, and starting their own network is impossible until more spectrum gets auctioned off. I'll bet that Apple was counting on a reaction like this, and has a provision buried in their contract with AT&T that says if a court forces them to unlock the phones, they can do so without invalidating their access to the network and AT&T can't complain.

Re:Apple probably wants this

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted a comment to this article right when it appeared and it took until just before reading your comment to realize that this is exactly what Apple wants. Apple said they were going to change the landscape of the cell phone business in America (U.S.), and that is exactly what they are going to do. Having courts rule that locking is illegal, or the legislature passing laws to effect the same, levels the playing field. A level playing field is precisely what the newcomer wants, especially when they are trying to sell a product on its merits not the price cut a (soon to be illegal) tie-in can garner.

obligitory

[Gary W. Longsine]

Soylent green is peeeeeopleeeeee!

You wrote:
"The customer is treated like a consumable."

Re:Question

[1001011010110101]

They can deny it, but I'm not sure they have the right (that it would stand on a trial).
I mean, if after I buy it I can do whatever I want, even use it in an unforeseen way... they shouldn't care.

I Filed an FCC Complaint

[OS24Ever]

I got bored and one site recommended filing a FCC complaint so I did, saying that they wouldn't unlock my phones after 90 days of service like their other phones.

I got a call from the office of the president for AT&T. Unfortunately I was downstairs celebrating my daughters birthday so haven't been able to talk to them to see what happens, but I was pretty dang surprised.

Re:Question

[argent]

I mean, if after I buy it I can do whatever I want, even use it in an unforeseen way... they shouldn't care.

They don't care. Right up to the point where you try and get them to pick up the tab for fixing it after you do whatever you do with it.

That's all warranty support means, after all. You're entitled to smash your iPhone with a hammer, but don't expect them to replace it afterwards.

Some companies have great warranty support. I prefer to patronize Sears after a couple of cases where they went WAY out of their way for me... far beyond what I'd ever expect... and there's companies I won't name that I will never do business with again after they went out of their way to get OUT of supporting a defective product.

Apple's warranty support hasn't been great, but it's been adequate, and I'm glad I got Applecare for my Macbook.

The question of whether Apple's deliberately bricked people's iPhones and whether that's legal is a whole different matter from whether your anally inserted iPhone is entitled to warranty support.

Harware Vs Software Hacks and Warranties

[fast turtle]

In the case of the damn iphone, if you unlocked the thing using a software hack as most people did, then you did not void your warranty unlike a hardware hack which does. Now in the event anyone was foolish enough to risk opening a no user servicable parts piece of equipment, then yes the warranty is null & void under the law and it's this issue that will be decided by the courts.

Simply put, Apple can not disclaim warranty responsibility for software hacks and all that can be enforced is the returning of the phone to a working state with the new updates. They are not required to fix the hack and reinstall any additional apps onto the system that was not originally there (Recovery CD's anyone?). So what will happen is that Apple will have to meet the letter of the law and nothing more after it's determined that the unlocking was done via software and not hardware.

Re:Harware Vs Software Hacks and Warranties

[mr_matticus]

In the case of the damn iphone, if you unlocked the thing using a software hack as most people did, then you did not void your warranty unlike a hardware hack which does That's not accurate. The issue here is not a software hack on the flash storage medium, which can certainly be repaired and reverted. The issue is a firmware modification, which has consistently been held to be a hardware component. If you load a customized BIOS and then flash, destroying your mainboard, you're SOL.

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).

Re:Harware Vs Software Hacks and Warranties

[stewbacca]

Would you like to provide some proof that Apple would have to honor warranty work for software hacked phones?

Bricking not intentional

[tgibbs]

What is now becoming clear is that many unlocked phones come through the upgrade unbricked, albeit re-locked. Considering that recognizing an unlocked phone should be a simple matter of a checksum, it seems clear that Apple was not intentionally "bricking" phones. There are reasons to believe that this is likely an unintended side effect of an update designed primarily to enhance iPhone security. If it was not intentional, Apple is in the clear, as they are under no legal obligation to debug an update to work with phones that have been modified in violation of warranty. And indeed, it seems that while Apple is under no legal obligation to do so, Apple sotres are restoring "bricked" iPhones. Moreover, it is not as if Apple failed to warn owners of unlocked iPhones that applying the update would likely harm their phones.

Re:Bricking not intentional

[makomk]

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?

Re:Bricking not intentional

[tgibbs]

In fact, he article you've linked to doesn't say that many unlocked phones have come through unbricked.

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?

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?

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.

Re:Bricking not intentional

[makomk]

Guess which unlock most people probably used? I'd say the iPhone Dev Team anySIM unlock (i.e. the one that the 1.1.1 firmware update bricks). iPhoneSIMfree was more expensive and harder to get hold of (especially once anySIM was released and various of the iPhoneSIMfree redistributors started fobbing paying customers off with that instead).

Re:Bricking not intentional

[tgibbs]

The point is that if Apple wanted to brick unlocked phones, it would be trivial to do so based upon a simple checksumming of the iPhone's software. It would be a lot more trouble to target specific unlocks. So those who wish to accuse Apple of intentionally damaging unlocked phones need to explain why some unlocked phones survived the update (not to mention why Apple went to so much effort to warn owners of unlocked iPhones not to update).

Re:Bricking not intentional

[makomk]

I'm not sure if there's even an official way of reading the baseband flash in general. The iPhone DevWiki people figured out some way of reading most of it, but they weren't exactly following the rules.

(Incidentally, the protection in the new software is nasty. Consensus appears to be that it probably uses trusted computing to protect the decryption keys for the software.)

Re: English page

[rdebath]

http://www.au.kddi.com/english/product/lineup/simple_phone_a101k/index.html

Re:Question

[duguk]

If they sold it with the express knowledge that the iPhone is only permitted to be inserted, into, say, Goatse's anus, and you insert it into your own and it fails the next time it updates, that'd be different.

I don't see it should make any difference, the hardware and software is still compatible for your own anus, or Goatse's anus, its just that Apple won't allow you to put it into your own anus, only into AT&T.

If the battery is running out too fast, then make sure you've inserted the charging cable firmly into the hole. Unfortunately its not covered under warranty as its a consumable item. Apparently.

Dug

Re:Why is the iPhone any different than a computer

[tgibbs]

I really see no true difference between using your iPhone (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) and hooking your landline (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) through your computer's modem so you can use a software phone and answering machine. Also, how is it any different from using your laptop with a cellular card (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) to get internet connectivity on the go?

It is different because the warranty and user agreement is different.

So this is a bit like asking "I can remodel a house that I buy, so why can't I remodel the house that I rent? A house is a house, right?"

The same type of product may be covered by different contracts under different circumstances, with different legal obligations and privileges.

Re:Could address many areas of lock-in

[b0s0z0ku]

Automotive diagnostic tools, printer refills, and "the exclusive jet engine provider" found on the 737 and 787 are a form of technology lock.

Actually car diagnostics are already required to be somewhat unlocked -- error codes were standardized to some extent by the OBD II standard in the 1990s. Personally, I think that car makers should be required to provide a USB interface and complete diagnostic software with the sale of every car, but that's just me :)

-b.

Consumer class action suits are a scam

[tgibbs]

The way it works is that the lawyer ultimately settles for pennies on the dollar. It is cheaper and safer for the company to settle than to go to court, where there is some risk of losing even if they are in the right, not to mention the bad publicity.

The consumers who are members of the class get a pittance, usually a discount certificate that isn't worth the time it takes to fill out the forms to qualify for it. But the lawyer gets a percentage of all of those little settlements, and goes home substantially richer for almost no work.

Re:Wow, I must have missed the Gun To Head

[tgibbs]

And then he came back and put a gun to their head and forced them to apply the update...

Re:Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they figh

[borgheron]

If it can be shown that Apple intentionally bricked modified phones (that is to say... had code which specifically detected and *proactively* bricked the phone), then they're in violation of Magnusun v. Moss. This lawsuit establishes the precedent that you are allowed to modify hardware that you own and, unless the company can show that your modification harms the device in some way, then they must honor the warranty.

IANAL, but I don't think this fight is as cut and dry as you believe it to be.

GJC

Beacon of Capitalism, my ass!

[LwPhD]

I see where you are coming from. However, your analogy is not a fair comparison. You are most certainly not renting the iPhone. It is yours. By the very nature of rental agreement, you do not own anything at all. But by purchasing the iPhone, you have only exchanged money with the vendor in exchange for a piece of hardware. If you want to blend it, unlock it, or even use it with AT&T's rate plan, you can. There is no obligation to do anything with your phone. You could even use it as a paperweight after you've bought it.

But, just to play devil's advocate on your behalf, perhaps the analogy should be with a condo and a house. You do own a condo, but you are bound by certain agreements that limits your freedom. The logic behind these limitations is usually in order to foster a certain type of community for the all condo owners. In fact, Apple's own justification about limiting 3rd party development invokes a desire to avoid "gum[ming] up" the network:

But it's not like the walled garden has gone away. "You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."

But I believe that's bullshit. Everybody and their brother is allowing development on their phones. Also, in line with this, the U.S. is virtually alone in the world with locked phones. For the beacon of capitalism in the world that the U.S. supposedly represents, we sure don't offer the myriad choices that demand and an free market would dictate must exist. I'm even more impatient with this crap, after living in Asia. I can get cheap, unlocked phones very easily here that will work both in the U.S. and all over the world. And the incentives built-in with providers isn't very convincing except for the most frugal buyer, or perhaps for the the very first-time buyer. Nope, this locking crap (both software and carrier) is for the birds.

Re:Beacon of Capitalism, my ass!

[tgibbs]

Yes, the phone is yours to do with as you wish. But access to services such as warranty repairs and compatible upgrades is contingent upon your abiding to your contract with Apple. It really doesn't matter whether you agree with Apple's rationale for setting those particular terms.

Re:Question

[1001011010110101]

They don't care. Right up to the point where you try and get them to pick up the tab for fixing it after you do whatever you do with it.

What you are not getting is that, even if you use in some other way in which they didn't think about, a bad battery is a bad battery and they have to replace it/repair it.
I'm not talking about a failure related to me inserting the iPhone into my anus. Its a bad battery, and they should honor their warranty.

Anough already

[dindi]

1. I do not agree with a company locking a phone to a provider, however:

2. A company has the right to say: you are buying this phone to use with AT&T, if you mess with it and brick it you breach our contract and you lose your warranty .....

just don't buy the stupid thing if you do not want ATT .... sooooo simple ...

Re:Question

[argent]

I'm not talking about a failure related to me inserting the iPhone into my anus. Its a bad battery, and they should honor their warranty.

And I'm not talking about what they SHOULD do. If the device is defective, they probably SHOULD repair or replace it.

That doesn't mean they MUST repair or replace it.

They aren't required to do anything they haven't agreed to do, and if they haven't agreed to perform any warranty work at all on devices that have been physically damaged by the customer, they aren't actually required to.

This doesn't mean that something other than the warranty might not come into play. Product recalls, for example, are not warranty support. And there are specific and fairly narrow legal restrictions about what warranties are allowed to exclude. Whether this situation is one of those cases or not is going to have to be decided in the courts.

But since there's no anal insertion exception, nor is there an iPhone battery recall in place, that wouldn't apply in the hypothetical situation that the OP presented. If you've voided your iPhone, and Apple has said that voids your warranty, then you're entitled to consider their warranty support inadequate but you can't actually compel them to honor it.

You Jack Asses knew the rules

[JohnnyGTO]

when you bought the @#^%!$% phone and cheated. OOOO look at us we beat Apple!!! Guess not huh? If I change the code on my cars engine management unit and F'up the car you think thats Fords fault. You morons are the same people that buy a home at the end of the runway then sue because of the noise!!!!

If you wanted the phones sold unlocked then you should have petition Apple to sell them at full list price just like an HTC but then you don't want to do that do you you want a free ride.

Re:Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they figh

[borgheron]

Correction... it's a Act, not a lawsuit. Like I said, IANAL.

Re:What good does unlocking an Iphone do....

[tuxedokamen]

ATT has no coverage in many places. Like the entire state of Vermont. If you happen to live in a dark spot, unlocking is the only way to use an iPhone. (In this situation, it's not even robbing revenue from ATT/Apple, because they never would have any legitimate customers from this state, but that's a whole other argument.)

As for losing "lots of neat features," Visual Voicemail is the only feature tied to ATT. Those who want to use an iPhone on another carrier do not view this feature as a must have. Old-style voicemail is still functional on other carriers.

And also, there are many more GSM carriers in the US than you might think: http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml . I can't say how many of those have unlimited EDGE data plans or useful coverage or competitive pricing, but it's just not accurate to say there's only two GSM players in the United States.

Re:What good does unlocking an Iphone do....

[japhering]

And also, there are many more GSM carriers in the US than you might think: http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml . I can't say how many of those have unlimited EDGE data plans or useful coverage or competitive pricing, but it's just not accurate to say there's only two GSM players in the United States.

Yes, lots of carriers in total, but only 2 on the list, that I spot that come close to being nation wide (Alltel, AT&T and T-Mobile). So if you
travel alot, as I do, unlocking an Iphone doesn't really buy me anything unless I want to be on the Alltel or T-Mobile networks. Quick scan of
half a dozen carrier pages around the areas I travel most shows most don't have non-roaming plans and thus would end up costing me considerably more than an AT&T nation wide plan.

So it all depends on what you want to do with your phone and where you would be operating it the most.

Personally, I hope Apple gets nailed for making the phone not suitable for its intended use. Obviously, if the phone is working on someone else' network, then the unlocking activity didn't break the phone.

What was Jobs thinking?

[Futurepower(R)]

"If it bricks a few unlocked phones, well, what do Apple care?"

You apparently aren't thinking of all the steps: 1) Apple locks the iPhone to a carrier with a very bad reputation (formerly SBC, now AT&T). 2) Apple sells the iPhone at a very high price, and after two months lowers the price $200, making enthusiasts unhappy. 3) Apple destroys iPhones that have been modified. 4) Apple repeatedly gets its name on Slashdot, in very negative stories. 5) Slashdot readers are Apple's best customers for iPhones, and for spreading information about iPhones to readers with no technical knowledge. Now Slashdot readers spread negative information, not only about the iPhone, but about Apple itself. 6) Apple is involved in a lawsuit that brings widespread very negative publicity.

7) Profit? Less than otherwise could be expected. What was Jobs thinking? The damage to Apple's reputation may be greater than the extra profit on the iPhone caused by the locking.

Sigh

[leabre]

I realize that sometimes a company can get too carried away and need to be "corrected". But in general, this is why things are so expensive in the United States. A business cannot make every customer happy but now we have situations where a company can and will be sued by anyone that is unhappy. How long before nothing new arrives in this country because they will get sued for some reason and lose more money than they stand to make? Its insane.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:Sigh

[justinlee37]

this is why things are so expensive in the United States

Please provide some evidence for your claims. This is about objectivity, not supposition.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? - Bricking?

[cleatsupkeep]

I thought a place like slashdot, we'd get rid of people throwing around the term bricking left and right. I was under the impression that bricking meant that the device was completely unusable, you couldn't turn it on and such. All that is happening here is that the phone is being re-locked, and third party apps are being removed. Sure, not the outcome I could have hoped for (I liked my 3rd party apps and can always downgrade), but it's not bricking, and people claiming it is are way off-base. I don't agree with Apple's actions, but you were given plenty of warning, had to say yes TWICE to upgrade, and knew the ramifications of this upgrade weeks or months in advance.

Apple's Market Share

[meehawl]

during the years when Apple practiced lock-in most thoroughly, they were the least successful.

How do you define "successful"? In 1980, when Apple went public, it was the single largest hardware manufacturer of PCs by marketshare (variously estimated at between 15% and 40% depending on how you defined it. When the Jobsian closed-Mac launched, Ap-ple was was still one of the largest by volume. The rejection of the Jobs Mac and Apple's neglect of the Apple ][ business led to a decline in marketshare, but the introduction of the expandable Mac II and Sculley's closed system strategy actually increased Apple's marketshare until Mac marketshare peaked between 1992 and 1994 with something around 15%. Since then it dwindled consistently, suffering some of its sharpest drops at the start of Jobs' reign when he pursued his scorched earth policy of discontinuing 3rd-party hardware licensing and laying off most of the R&D and sales channels. The lows were around 1.5% when the Power CPU strategy was reaching its end, and the increase since then has been impressive by Apple's standards but minor by actual industry standards.

Re:Apple's Market Share

[hawk]

>his scorched earth policy of discontinuing 3rd-party hardware licensing

This is repeated as often as it is untrue.

Apple did *not* discontinue or cancel the licensing program. It *did* demand a significantly larger royalty on high-performance machines, which none of the licensees were willing to pay. At the time, apple shelled out more in R&D per high-end machine that it sold than the licensees paid--while using apple designed boards.

hawk

Re:Apple's Market Share

[ZoneGray]

I guess it would have been more accurate to say that in the 80's & 90's, Apple charged a heavy premium for their proprietary platform. In recent years, they've reduced prices to be more competitive, and they're rapidly taking home PC share from Windows. Whatever the market share numbers were, Apple pretty much just sold to graphics pros and latte snobs before they introduced the Intel Macs.

BTW, Apple's share of sales peaked in 1992-1994 because that's when Microsoft got everybody hooked on the 24-month upgrade cycle. That gravy train ended with XP, and MSFT stock has pretty much flatlined since. Meanwhile, AAPL is up 10x and still running. Sort of like Microsoft in the 90's. But I do think Apple is a much more benign company than Microsoft was in its day. I mean, Apple actually makes stuff people WANT. Microsoft mostly made their money selling upgrades that people felt they HAD to buy.

All I have to say is...

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Hahahaha! If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product. There's absolutely no way Apple can lose this case!

BTW, my unadulterated iPhone is working fine!

Ebay?

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:What good does unlocking an Iphone do....

[ToasterMonkey]

Most (all but what you spotted) are regional carriers. If you want a dirt cheap plan with horrible roaming rates outside your state or county, go with them. As for unlimited EDGE, most people on those carriers would be lucky to have EDGE access at all.

Re:Why is the iPhone any different than a computer

[grappler]

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself. I just plunked down on some Apple products, I like the company, and I really hope I still like them a year from now.

All the goodwill Apple has from the tech-savvy crowd is in jeopardy here, and that ought to be worth something to them.

uPhone (ubuntu phone)

[HartDev]

I want to find who is making a Linux kernel/OS for the iPhone and give them a couple hundred bucks, can anyone point me in the right direction?

no information on iPhone update 1.1.1? Bzzt!

[Gary W. Longsine]

Although you're right that the "tech-ignorant media" and the blogosphere are spreading their conspiracy theory about the iPhone update, there is a reasonable amount of information about what the update did. You just have to spend about 3 seconds googling for it:

iPhone update 1.1.1 security items
Apple iPhone update 1.1.1

Uh... and a video. Yeah. A video that tells you about the software update.

iPhone September '07 software update

This is nuts

[Orig_Club_Soda]

How can a company guarantee functionality of the product if the user deliberately breaks the manufacturer configuration.

Liar, liar, pants on fire...

[shmlco]

So here you say, "The "Genius" at the Apple store told me that they had intentionally disabled my [sic] iPhone..."

Funny, but on September 3rd you said, "My wife uses an iPhone, but until I can legally program the damned thing, I'm not getting one."

So PLEASE go code for Ubuntu Mobile. Because I'm sure they can use people who just make up shit as they go along...

Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire...

[smilindog2000]

You did a bit of digging... In reply to my post, someone pointed out the web page for people programming iphones. In response, I bought one, and began to work on developing apps for iPhone. Now, my iPhone is dead, thanks to a-hole Steve. Yes, I think I will help Ubuntu, and fuck Steve. And, frankly, you do a lot of digging for a fairly stupid person.

Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire...

[smilindog2000]

Also note... if the iPhone 2.0 comes out with a proper open-source SDK, yeah, I'll get one, even if Steve is an a-hole. I can't resist fiddling with the best toys...

Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire...

[shmlco]

"Now, my iPhone is dead, thanks to a-hole Steve."

I'm sure smashing it on the counter didn't help...

"And, frankly, you do a lot of digging..."

Well, you see it's the web. You click on the name, then check out a couple a posts. Takes, oh, 60 seconds. Just wondered what kind of person would smash his iPhone to pieces. Or if it was just hyperbole...

Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire...

[shmlco]

"I'll get one..."

You mean, of course, that you'll get another one...

Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire...

[Damvan]

No, your iPhone is dead thanks to a-hole smilindog2000.

Re:Why is the iPhone any different than a computer

[macs4all]

The iPhone is not like a general-purpose computer; it is like a microwave oven, a router, a television set, a toaster, a TiVO, or a DVD player. In other words, it is an APPLIANCE. The /. crowd, like the people in this lawsuit, have to grow up, and get into the 1980s: In other words, there are embedded systems in a LOT of products; however, that does NOT mean that the manufacturer of your TV's remote control has to provide an SDK so you can cross-compile uCLinux to run on it; nor provide VoIP support for your Motorola Razor, etc.

If someone modded their TiVO to run OpenStep, or decompiled and rewrote their router's software so that it had better packet filtering, or played Pong, and the next CONSENTUALLY ACCEPTED firmware update made it into a finely crafted block of swiss cheese, capability-wise, would there be a lawsuit? Maybe, but not one that would prevail, let alone be granted "class" status!

Jobs laid down the development-law (at least for now) regarding the iPhone: No SDK. Web 2.0 "apps" only. And the "locked" law: Requires contract with AT&T (in the USA). He did this PUBLICLY, LONG before the iPhone went on sale. Not one single purchaser can claim ignorance of those conditions.

And yet, when someone wants to make their iPhone into something it was not developed for, regardless of the capabilities of the underlying OS, and then Apple wants to fix some stuff (and even add some features for free!), then WARNS PEOPLE OF MODIFIED PHONES THAT THEIR CONSENTUALLY ACCEPTED UPDATE MAY BREAK THEIR APPLIANCES, I sincerely believe that this lawsuit is, as it should be, doomed to fail.

Tough. Not Apple's fault. Any other position comes from simply being ignorant of contract law. Apple's phone is working to spec. Apple is in full compliance with thier part of the contract. And so is AT&T. Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone.

It's just - that - simple.

Wikipedia Is Not Fact

[meehawl]

This is repeated as often as it is untrue. Apple did *not* discontinue or cancel the licensing program.

Please provide me with some references. I'd love to learn more about this because it sounds as though, if it were never cancelled, that third-party manufacturers could today license and sell Macintosh-compatible hardware? Sweet... and amazing that in all that time, nobody was willing to pay the increased licence fees. Given OSX's recent marketshare bump, that would seem attractive to some players. Here are some contrary references that I found:

Up to around 1997, companies including Power Computing were given the rights to license Mac technology from Apple. However, when Jobs returned to the company, he attempted at first to renegotiate the licences but eventually opted to cancel them.

Apple has consistently rejected opportunities to adjust its innovation strategy to another model. Licensing its operating system to hardware manufacturers would have been an obvious choice. Yet when Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, he terminated the first and last licensing program, championed by former chief executive Gilbert Amelio. Jobs is reported to have told Apple managers that he feared "Mac knockoffs" would dilute the Apple brand.

and finally, a goodie from 1997, worrying that with the rumours of Jobs taking over at Apple, that 3rd-party licences for OS8 would not be forthcoming...

Further rumors indicate that Jobs is pushing for the end of MacOS cloners altogether. He apparently has called them "leeches", and who can blame him? None of the cloners -- PowerComputing, Motorola, Umax, etc. -- have ligitimately tried to grow the MacOS market. As far as I can tell, they have only advertised in Macintosh publications.

Re:Wikipedia Is Not Fact

[hawk]

Please provide me with some references. I'd love to learn more about this because it sounds as though, if it were never cancelled, that third-party manufacturers could today license and sell Macintosh-compatible hardware? Sweet... I have none handy, but go to sources such as macweek *during* the negotiations, describing the problems. The summaries afterwards are the mythology we live with today.

Basically what happened was that Apple wanted to hand the low-end to the cloners, and keep the high end for itself. The licenses provided board designs--from apple's low end--and a fixed per machine license.

Instead of sticking with those, cloners goosed the speed and added other features, producing machines as fast as the high end--the machines that paid for the R&D (they weren't too interested in the low end, either, once they saw they could do this).

Appple did indeed demand negotiations, but offered a license fee of hundreds of dollars per high end machine--what each of those sales cost apple. The cloners refused.

Given that there have been no clones for several years, I doubt that the contracts even exist for current machines. However, if they would actually pay their way *and* increase rather than decrease apple profits, I wouldn't be surprised to see apple agree. However, this wouldn't result in less expensive machines--the reasons that the fast clones cost less than apple's high end last time was that they just weren't carrying the R&D load, and apple isn't foolish enough to blow that again.

hawk

Re:Allowed to modify phone to switch carriers?

[tgibbs]

I'm pretty sure that it's considered anti-competitive to lock your phone to one network only. I think you're specifically allowed to "hack" any device with such a carrier lock, and that is deemed an acceptable modification of software or hardware to do so.

You are half right. It is not considered anticompetitive in the US to lock your phone to one network only, and it is commonly done. You are, however, right that users are specifically allowed to hack such devices to open them up. However, the manufacturer is not required to make this easy or even possible, nor are they required to provide warranty service or compatible software updates to users who do so.

This is what was puzzling to me about this deal between Apple and AT&T. If they are required to allow their phone to work with other carriers, and they issue updates which brick only the phones using other carriers, that seems like a pretty clear case of anti-competitive behaviour.

There is no such requirement. All the law says is that they cannot sue users who unlock their phones and collect damages under the DMCA copyright act.

Re:Question

[KnacTheMife]

for fuck sake, why dont you just let lemmiwinks come out to make the call..

Re:Why is the iPhone any different than a computer

[LwPhD]

Your first mistake is that you speak of this as if it is only a matter of law. Clearly, this is about more than that. There is a huge population that sees the phone market as something more than an embedded system. And they want products that act as more than embedded systems. So, while this may or may not be settled in Apple's favor in the courts, there can be little doubt that handheld computers with cellular service will be a market force to be reckoned with in the not too distant future. If Apple succeeds in rebuffing people who would push the iPhone closer to that goal, then they are quite simply backpedaling from something the market desires.

Secondly, there is an issue of intentionally breaking the iPhone. So far Apple is just playing as if is an "unfortunate" side-effect. However, if it can be shown that such updates could easily avoid bricking the iPhones, then I think Apple should be sued. Think about it. If you take your Buick into a Buick dealership to get work done, and you sign a release form saying "If there are any non-Buick parts, you agree that we me return your car in non-working condition" that would be completely ridiculous. Even if this is lawful, it should receive a lot of bad publicity. This is simply anti-consumer. Even a failed lawsuit is a loss for Apple in this case. It brings attention to Apple's practice of bricking iPhones.

Finally, please cite where law requires a subscription to AT&T? Seriously. You are not required to activate your iPhone with AT&T. If I wanted to buy an iPhone for an art project, a paperweight, for a prop in a play or movie, or any other weird reason, I seriously doubt I would be contractually obligated to sign up with AT&T. Why would this be any different if instead of hooking it to AT&T, I decided to use T-Mobile? There is no law forbidding this. The only possible problem is distributing the unlock, which may (but probably doesn't) violate the DMCA:

"Individuals or companies that might help them are still prohibited from doing so. Thus, in many ways, the rule-making is an empty promise: giving a legal right to circumvent, without protecting access to the tools necessary to make that right a reality," she wrote.

Another issue is the Terms of Service (TOS) from AT&T. AT&T has a legal argument that the phone may not be operated on another network by the TOS -- assuming the customer has activated their iPhone.

Ms. Granick expressed the hope that this furor will change the future of mobile phones: "Perhaps the iPhone will awaken a consumer revolution, though not necessarily the one envisioned by Apple or AT&T."

So, if you decide not to accept AT&T's TOS by never activating your phone with AT&T, then I don't see how their TOS applies to you. And no contract is signed by buying the iPhone.

Re:Bloody Apple fucking fanbois

[toddestan]

The thing is with the iPhone update is that it's all software. It's not like people are rewiring the thing or putting in mod chips to unlock it, in which case it's totally reasonable that an update would brick it. So why does the iPhone with unmodified hardware get bricked by a firmware update? I would expect the update to simply overwrite whatever's there, blowing away any changes I made to the firmware and give me a virgin locked and updated iPhone. All things considered, it's not unreasonable at all to think that Apple did it on purpose.

Re:Mod parent up!

[ciw42]

It would appear neither you nor the parent poster understand Magnuson-Moss as it applies to modern consumer products.

The act was brought in more than 30 years ago, and so does not cater in any way for the concept of hardware and firmware/software in a modern device such as an iPhone, or most modern consumer products for that matter. It was intended to support consumers who have bought physical devices which are expected/required and warranted by the manufacturer to perform a job for a specified period without failure, and it does this job well, detailing the user's rights and providing reasonable protection from deliberately vague warranty terms.

It deals with the physical aspects of devices covered by a warranty, so in this situation you have two choices - You either accept that the software in an iPhone is a part of the device (something which is quite reasonable, as it is vital for it to function correctly, but also something which could be argued is simply configuration of the physical device) and therefore covered by the warranty. In this case the unit has been physically tampered with and therefore the warranty is void. Or, you can say that it isn't part of the product, but then the software isn't covered by Magnuson-Moss. Either way, you're onto a loser with your claims.

As far as refund/replacement goes, this only covers the product from any defect or malfunction in manufacture or one which arises from normal use in the manner in which it was intended. As there is more evidence than you could possibly ever need to provide defense in a lawsuit to show that iPhone's aren't bricked unless you have tampered with the firmware and are using the phone in a manner other than it was originally intended, you're screwed with this approach too.

Re:Bloody Apple fucking fanbois

[ciw42]

It's all about context.

Re:Bloody Apple fucking fanbois

[ciw42]

It's not quite as simple as saying that "it's just software", what you need to remember is that the firmware updates are actually carried out by the phone itself under software control, and that most of the iPhone's systems need to be fully functional for this to happen, so it's not just a case of zapping everything and replacing it with new software. If the device was being updated by an external device, e.g. a PC, then this would be possible, but not otherwise.

It's *possible* that Apple did this on purpose, anything's possible, but there's no reason to think that they actually did. These conspiracy theories seem to be completely unfounded, and I've not seen one single piece of evidence or even any real sound, sensible reasoning, it's all "Apple a bastards", "Steve Jobs in an a-hole" and the like.

Still, it has damaged Apple's reputation.

[Futurepower(R)]

MOD PARENT UP! He is disagreeing with a comment I made, and even I want him modded up.

I agree with what you said. However, it does not change the basic arithmetic of Apple with iPhone:

Apple iPhone profit =
+ profit from hardware
+ commissions from AT&T
- damage to Apple's reputation.

("Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.")

Kind of

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Do you mean that wireless providers in Europe are explicitly required to unlock your
> phone (if you ask, for some fee)?

Depends on the country.

In Denmark, they are obliged to unlock the phone after 6 months, which is the longest legally binding period for this kind of contracts. They are not allowed to require a fee for that.

I used that for my first cell phone, there were no problems.

These days, the six month subscription fee tend to be a pretty good match for the price difference between a locked and an unlocked phone. And some subscription plans have a sharp drop in the subscription fee after six months.

My current vendor doesn't even bother sim-locking the phones.

Re:Why is the iPhone any different than a computer

[macs4all]

You said: Your first mistake is that you speak of this as if it is only a matter of law. Clearly, this is about more than that.

That's true. In a lawsuit, there are also facts. But there are NOT "emotions, wants or desires". This is a product liability v. contract law dispute. Period. Dot. The End. Sorry if you are too ignorant of law or emotionally immature to see that. But that is what it is.

Me, I LOVE features! I LOVE expandibility! I have reverse-engineered embedded systems to add features.

But I would NEVER expect my modifications to those single-purpose (or limited-purpose) systems to survive a software update. Epecially not one where I was WARNED might negatively impact my joy...

Second, I misspoke when I said the purchase of an iPhone requires a contract with AT&T. What I should have said was "Using the cellphone features of the iPhone requires a contract with AT&T". However, it is a distinction with very little difference. I would imagine the percentage of iPhone customers who have elected not to use the cellphone or cellular data features of their iPhone is probably in the .0000001% world. And I would also imagine that Apple will prevail.

1. It was a consensual update. No MacroSuck(TM) "forced update" stuff here!

2. You were warned before the phone was on sale that using the phone in the US meant AT&T.

3. You were warned before the phone was on sale that the only "apps" would be web-based.

4. You had 14 days under Apple's normal return policy to return the phone for a refund.

5. You were warned that this particular update may adversely affect modified phones.

It really is that simple. Anything else is just whining, and quite unbecoming of an adult... ;-)

Tax and Conquer

[meehawl]

go to sources such as macweek *during* the negotiations, describing the problems. The summaries afterwards are the mythology we live with today.

I've looked online, and the nearest I can find to a MacWeek archive is this. I can't find any of these negotiations you mention. Cringely/Stephens said in 1997 that:

So Steve has killed the clonemakers, or has he? Power Computing is absorbed, Motorola is getting out of the Mac business and taking a $95 million charge, while IBM will apparently cut off its Mac production for OEMs. But somehow Umax got a license for MacOS 8.0, as did Powertools. These two companies were able to succeed where IBM and Motorola couldn't simply because they were willing to pay dramatically higher royalties to Apple. It's not that Jobs was adamantly opposed to clones, but that he wanted Apple to make as much profit from each clone as it did from its own production.

Which seems to back up your assertion. But if this is true, and at least some cloners were willing to pay Jobs' super-increased tax, where are they now and why did they not continue? Was the tax priced deliberately high enough effectively to kill the contracts without appearing to be the primary party backing out of a relationship entered into in good faith?

Re:Tax and Conquer

[hawk]

I don't even remember any actually agreeing. Speculating: they just weren't making enough once they had to compete on a level playing field with apple--people bought clones because they were less expensive than the real thing. Paying the same/similar costs resulted in same/similar prices--would you by the clone if you were only saving 5%?

IIRC, the steep royalty increase only applied to the the upper-end machines, not to the low-end machines. Low end machines, though, left companies in essentially the same industry as x86 pc clones.

hawk

Jobs Says Shitter

[meehawl]

people bought clones because they were less expensive than the real thing.

Some did, but I recall that some people were buying some of the higher-end clones because they offered some advanced dual- and quad-CPU options (for example, DayStar Digital) that were unavailable or under-spec'd by Apple at that time. In many case, they were paying the same or more for these than extant retail for Apple kit.

I found a short clip of Jobs exerting the Reality Distortion Field wrt clone licences. Jobs derides their value, but this says they were a 7.25% royalty... low, but not "$50", assuming an average of $2,000 retail for every Power Computing machine, some 50,000 generating $100m in sales.

All in all Jobs' attitude presented quite a change from Apple's earlier I Think We're A Clone Now enthusiasm. Here's another vintage video, a news extract describing Apple's short-lived experiment with Macintosh licensing.

Under Jobs, Apple resorted to several strategies to squelch the Mac cloners. One cunning method was to rebrand OS 7.7 as OS 8, thereby voiding existing pricing deals and enabling Apple to reset terms that were more punitive. In the case of Power Computing, Apple paid $100m to buy the company outright, including all its IP, and thus shut down one of the more prominent cloners. Apple also got PC's impressive direct ordering system modelled on Gateway/Dell , which enabled it to build out its apple.com sales channel.

Re:Why is the iPhone any different than a computer

[LwPhD]

Even though your discourse lacks the most basic conventions of debate or decorum and you confound insults with substance, I feel compelled to respond because my point still stands, un-addressed by your non sequiturs and ad hominem asides.

My original contention was that, the law..., yes, the law (readily acknowledged) in this area seems to give special attention to unlocking of cellular devices. Other computing devices of various sizes with analogous abilities are not so regulated. Moreover, I also expressed the desire that such challenges will push a change in the law. I'd be equally satisfied if the obvious dissatisfaction of users would push for a change by Apple itself.

Moreover, I don't dispute many of the elegantly and oh so subtly disseminated points you support. They are simply irrelevant to my post. Sure, Apple warned, sure Apple probably can't be shown to have broken the law. But what does that have to do with my comments? Quite frankly, Apple (and most hardware companies) as a matter of course make special effort to make sure that their mass-market consumer devices are bullet-proof and idiot-proof. And that's at the very least. In fact, many competitors in the very same market as the iPhone encourage 3rd party development and freely sell unlocked phones. Notably, their updates never brick their products. Sure, at this juncture, Apple is free to inconvenience as many or as few customers as it chooses. If this behavior (callous at best and malicious at worst) is what we can expect from Apple (and in general, they do much better than this, and in fact are better than most companies), then there will be no "whining", just a change in consumer preference, at least on my part.

And yes you did misspeak, and continue to do so. You are not contractually obliged to use any hardware capabilities in any particular way. If you decided to use them with T-Mobile (even, -gasp-, the cellular capabilities) you wouldn't be breaking any contract. (Although, as an aside, if you could provide contradictory evidence in the form of a link to such a contract and a legal interpretation by a disinterested party, I'd be obliged.)

In conclusion, I reiterate my point that this an issue larger than the law. It is about the viability of particular strategies for Apple's iPhone, of which the narrow legalistic interpretation that you take is only a small part. So, while your assertions regarding your own chosen "walled garden" of argument may in some abstract sense be "true" (although this is by no means guaranteed), they in no way impact the bigger and more interesting picture. Even if the lawsuit fails miserably, I think the minor revolt by its customers has already been duly noted by Apple and will become an important part of their calculus in their future development of this product.

Re:Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they figh

[JoelKatz]

"Apple is also perfectly within their rights to not give warranty service to those that modded their phone. The Magnuson-Moss Act only provides protection to those whose aftermarket bits did not cause the phone to die. If these folks had not modded their phone, the update would not have killed it."

Umm, the modification didn't cause the phone to die, the update did. The phone worked after the mod, it didn't work after the update.

Isn't it obvious that Apple released the update at least knowing that it would brick a modded phone? Isn't it even probable that they intended this?

Apple's choice bricked the phone. Apple's actions were intended to brick modded phones.

Denying warranty coverage on this basis is *EXACTLY* what Magnusson-Moss prohibits.

Re:Question

[Yer Mom]

Thanks. Now I'm imagining a plastic model Goatse that can be used as an iPod / iPhone dock...

Pass the tequila, please.

A good solution to a silly problem:

[photomonkey]

There are two camps to this argument, but both neglect the obvious answer:

Camp A maintains that AT&T/Apple are evil for not supplying SKDs, for locking everyone into the service, for not unlocking the phones, for bricking (intentionally or unintentionally) custom-modified phones.

Camp B says that Apple and AT&T can do whatever the hell they want because the product (the phone) and the service (cellular access) are two completely different products. Synopsis: "If you modify your own phone (perfectly within your right to do it), and it breaks some functionality, how exactly is that Apple's OR AT&T's problem?"

I think the right answer is to educate yourself about the product you're buying and then make the choice whether to buy the product. Apple, good or bad, was very up-front that if you buy the phone, the service is through AT&T only and that the minimum contract length is 2 years.

They were also up-front about the cost of the phone and the cost of the monthly service to the phone.

I can't believe that so many people laid out hard-earned cash for the phone, made custom modifications to the phone, and expect Apple to continue to support it.

It does suck that the phones are tied to AT&T. Don't like? Don't buy.

In the time-honored tradition of Slashdot car analogies, the iPod is like a Bentley that you're only allowed to drive on certain streets. Freedom of choice is important to me; therefore I buy cars that I can drive on m/any streets. It seems far more practical to spend money on something that works the way I want it to, rather than to buy it, break it and then sue someone else to make it work.

Why spend $500 on a phone that doesn't do what you want it to (IE, is tied to only one network, doesn't have an SDK, doesn't do x, yo or z)?

Maybe people just have far too much money...