Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over iPhone Bricking
An anonymous reader writes "The week's debate over the iPhone 1.1.1 has finally resulted in legal action. InfoWeek reports that on Friday, California resident Timothy Smith sued Apple in a class-action case in Santa Clara County Superior court. The suit was filed by Damian Fernandez, the lawyer who's been soliciting plaintiffs all week for a case against Apple. The suit doesn't ask for a specific dollar amount, but seeks an injunction against Apple, which prevents it from selling the iPhone with any software lock. It also asks that Apple be enjoined from denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhone, and from requiring iPhone users to get their phone service through AT&T."
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?
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
... 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.
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.
Is it? I think the current situation is as follows:
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?
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 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
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.
For our international friends OfCOM is the government watch body for communications, a few years back they made the statement that unlocking your phone so it will work on different networks is perfectly legal and carriers have to unlock a phone if asked to do so (not tried it myself.) Apple's recent american update would fly in the face of that and OfCOM aren't afraid to fine companies and force them to follow their rules. OfCOM is currently looking into forcing broadband adverts to be more truthfull so marketing speak like "upto 8MBPS" or "unlimited" won't be allowed (even if they are legal) for Americans out there this is to protect consumers and is a good thing.
I doubt its going to sell many units to the teenage "cool and hip" crowd because every teenager I know in the UK doesn't want to bring an expensive phone out on the town and I doubt your "power manager" type will end up with one because, from my albiet limited expearence with O2 stores. The staff are actually quite good at matching the phone to the individual, it may not necessarily be the most expensive phone they have on offer nor might it be the coolest looking but it will be roughly what the customer is after.
You believe that Apple's actions are OK, and maybe they are in the US. But that won't fly in Europe.
The GSM standard expressly provides for cross-vendor compatibility through simple SIM change, and unlocking of locked phones is entirely legal in most if not all European countries. In fact, it's a substantial business to provide unlocking services, and to sell ready-unlocked phones.
That doesn't mean that it's free (a cellphone service provider will charge you for unlocking, since it carries the risk for them that you might defect to a competitor if their service is bad). But it does mean that unlocking is supported.
If the accepted and legal position in the US is that providers are allowed to deny GSM service mobility by not offering unlocking and by bricking unlocked phones on purpose (allegedly), then those providers are about to face problems when they try to do the same thing in European jurisdictions.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
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.
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.
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
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?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
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.
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.
According to several reports, a big chunk of Apple's profit is coming from the locked-in service providers:
http://www.thestreet.com/s/huge-iphone-fees-juice-apple/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10369581.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/17/mobilephones.apple
To make the same profit without a lock, Apple would have to raise the retail price significantly. Looks like a subsidy to me.
Yes, when purchasing an iPhone you are under no obligation to sign a contract.
What Apple want is for the customer to own the phone and not the service provider. Steve Jobs said many times he wishes to change the business models of mobile phone service providers where they provide the service, and the customer owns the device (iPhone). Now this is where it gets into a dodgy area in the UK. Contract phones are locked in the UK because the device is owned by the service provider until x amount of payments are made - payments that cover the subsidy costs. Because the service provider owns the device, they can do whatever they want to your phone; they can lock it to their network, block the phone, or even take it off you. The contract will state this, and if you want the device to be unlocked the contract will have to be terminated, you will have to pay all the payments for the term of the contract (to cover the subsidy). When the contract ends, the service provider will usually give the ownership of the phone to the customer, so if the customer wishes they could unlock their phone, a small and reasonable administrative charge may be made (£15 is what O2 charges). Now, the iPhone is not owned by service provider, with what OfCOM have stated (telephones must be unlocked on request and small admin fee may be charged), the iPhone should be allowed to be unlocked from day one of ownership. O2 are stating you will not be allowed to unlock the phone for 9 months and doing so will terminate the contract so the rest of the last 9 months contract will have to paid off, however the phone is not owned by O2 in any way, so what they are doing is going against what OfCOM have said. 'Yeah what contract, there was no contract when I bought the phone' will be in my head when it is launched. I have asked at three O2 stores and they have confirmed the iPhone will not be owned by O2 however their HQ is pushing for the iPhone to not be unlocked. One stored offered to unlock it, but do not know of any means to at the moment. I will stay with O2 but do not want that awful contract they offer for the iPhone, I get a better offer on PAYG. Notice the contract is "for the iPhone" and not "with the iPhone". The O2 stores believe a PAYG method will be available just like AT&T if you have a poor credit rating. I asked I could have the PAYG and they said yes if it is offered as they cannot say no because it would break discrimination laws. If PAYG is offered, they for sure cannot keep you locked in. You do pay full whack for the iPhone, they have a nice table that was printed that states how much each handset will cost on certain contracts, the iPhone was listed and it said, "£269. (none subsidised)".