I'm sorry, while I understand a lack of control over corporate policy (That's why I only mentioned home use.) Your home is where you have control.
As far as I'm concerned, if, at home, you run one piece of Microsoft software, licensed or otherwise, you are part of the Microsoft problem.
Its like obesity or alcoholism, to change away from Microsoft does take some work. If you are not willing to work for that goal, you are part of the problem. People who whine about Microsoft but don't take a stand are lazy cowards who perpetuate the situation they complain about. Face it, you are in an busive relationship and you need to get out.
Seriously, I was working at a medical imaging company in 1995 and testing a number of systems (QNX, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Windows 95, Windows NT, and Windows 3.11) to create a turn-key medical imaging system. Not one of the MS offerings were stable enough to call a product. Every morning, EVERY MORNING, the NT box was blue screened.
Linux was good at the time, but NetBSD, FreeBSD, and QNX were all great. NetBSD was smaller, but since we were going to use x86 design, we focused on FreeBSD and Linux. FreeBSD was better, but Linux had more active development and seemed like a better bet.
Because of that experience, I dropped Windows at home. In my house, we run Linux or OS/X on our computers.
Since that day, I become more and more bewildered that people continue to put up with that crap. Seriously, who needs it. Of late, OpenOffice.org does what you need.
It was actually Harry Houdini (Erich Weisz) that was one of the first proponents of the "do it once and make profit forever" media visionaries.
In the abstract, it make a lot of sense, and in its own way fair. Harry knew that age and injury would eventually destroy his ability to make money. This new "moving picture thing" was a way he could perfect his skill and make money showing people his tricks without the personal risks, expense, and the inevitable corruption of age.
This made sense when distribution and production of this material was in and of itself and expensive proposition. By the very nature of the medium be scarce, you could charge for viewership.
The problem with the internet, and one the copyright cartels don't like, fully understand but refuse to accept, is that the internet and computers remove the scarcity of the medium. There is no resource based "natural" regulation of the flow of media.
Make no mistake, this is the downfall of civilization as we know it. A civilization were information is *free* as in beer and as in access is a threat to ALL governments, even the ones we think are democratic.
Without regulation, without "profit" in the system, (which translates to expensive barriers to entry) common people can participate. When common people participate, history shows that wealthy people and powerful governments crumble.
There are a number of things that are perfectly obvious to me that may not be obvious to someone else. One of the things I think is lacking is the notion, actually used in patent law, "obvious to someone skilled in the art." But what "art?" Software engineering is not one art. Like it or not, it is splitting into a number of (sometimes and sometimes not) overlapping fields.
Web, GUI, networking, search, OS, embedded, etc. these are all specializations and what is obvious to an OS guy may be completely incomprehensible to a web guy. An OS guy who only sees mouse clicks as merely system interrupts may not think 1-click is obvious, hell he probably doesn't even like mice.
The 1-click patent is totally obvious and trivial to anyone doing any sort of GUI and/or web programming.
Well, yes, the music does suck, but it's not like music overall has gotten better or worse over the years. Remember the old rule, "95% of everything is crap?" It was true 50 years ago when the record labels were making out like gangbusters and it's still true today. The only difference now is that no one remembers lousy bubble-gum pop bands from the early 1960s like "The Archies." "The music sucks" isn't a real problem-- it's code for "get off my lawn."
You may say that, and while I respect your statement, when "I" was in high school and later, my generation listened to the music of our generation. We had the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeplen, etc. Want to know what high school kids listen too today? The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeplin, etc. Only the jr. high schoolers go for the pop crap these days.
The rare stuff that is good, is, um, rare. The techno talentless crap that shows up on MTV awards sucks. That's why kids aren't buying it.
The music sucks. Maybe one good song on an album. Little girls who can't sing dancing on stage with no cloths Utter and complete pathological need to control the content contempt for their customers Failure to recognize that people like music on CDs, MP3 playes, and their computers and don't want to pay three times.
Its funny, but about 10 years ago, a nail polish company was found to be negligent because its nail polish did not cure chigger bites. While they did not advertise or claim to support that use of their product, they were held negligent for the failure because it was a "common" practice and the knew or should have known that was a use of their product.
I don't know the specific laws or decisions off the top of my head, but suffice to say an OEM's warranty only applies in the absence of relevant statute.
since the software for the iPhones whole purpose is based around the AT&T network, yet it does mean they do not have to support it.
This would have to be an assertion for the defense, but....., seeing as the same basic software with a few small modifications works with other phone companies, it doesn't seem all to promising.
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
They did. They told you not to fuck around with modifications, dummy.
Depending on the applicable laws, they probably don't have the right to demand that you do not modify YOUR property.
if, they can't prove that *you* damaged the device, and mere modification is not necessarily "damage," regardless of their protestations, they have legal responsibilities. If an expert testifies and can prove the modifications made do not harm the unit, and all reports seem to indicate that, Apple is responsible regardless of what ever their warranty says.
Since hacking your phone to allow it to use other carriers SIM card both voids your AT&T contract AND your warranty with Apple, Apple legally has no obligation to support it at that point.
Only in so far as the modifications affect "supportable" operation. For instance, if the modifications keep it from connecting to the AT&T network, they don't have to fix that, but that does not free them of further responsibility.
People wake up!! All the people posting here that, somehow, the warranty defines your rights or a manufacturer's responsibilities are absolutely 100% wrong.
Federal, state, and local statutes trump warranties every time. You have rights, and Apple has responsibilities!!!
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
Any defense of Apple that does not account for law or relevant legal precedent are, at best, flawed.
All the people posting here that, somehow, the warranty defines your rights or a manufacturer's responsibilities are absolutely 100% wrong.
Federal, state, and local statutes trump warranties every time.
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
Any defense of Apple that does not account for law or relevant legal precedent are, at best, flawed.
Sorry, but in a debate, a curse word usually means you are wrong but refuse to admit it.
Apple releases updates for iPhones. An unlocked iPhone is no longer an iPhone, it is an unlocked iPhone.
There is no legal or logical basis for this statement.
Applying an update for one piece of hardware to another can and will fuck it up. Since one would have to be at least somewhat in the know, technically, to even know what unlocking is, and even more informed to actually unlock it, Apple can assume that owners of unlocked phones would know that this is a possibility.
Conjecture with no supporting argument.
Once you mod your hardware, you are essentially trading your warranty for a superior experience.
A warranty does not define your rights, federal, state, and local statutes do. Warranties only disclaim, where not otherwise granted by statute, the responsibilities of the manufacturer.
The warranty is *only* what the company agrees to do about a defective product in absence of consumer protection laws and ownership rights.
Beyond the warranty, you have a wide range of rights to use your property regardless of who makes it. You own it. Its yours. You may void the company warranty, but you don't abandon your legal rights.
Well, you would be destroying it by applying an update to hardware that has been modified and is, as a result, incompatible with that update.
It is arguable, and probably winnable, that you assume Apple's updates are safe.
If Apple destroys your property, through deliberate action or negligence, i.e. producing an update that bricks your phone, they are legally responsible.
The fact that it is widely published that there are iPhones out there that are modified, and Apple as acknowledged this, Apple *must* exercise ordinary care to protect these phones. That's the law.
Yes it is your phone and Apple doesn't owe you anything more than what you paid for. These firmware updates are a free service provided by Apple. Apple has no obligation to support third-party modified phones if they don't want to.
You are the perfect consumer, you know absolutely nothing about your rights and argue that it is OK when a manufacturer tries to screw you over.
There are consumer protection laws in the U.S.A. on the federal, state, and local levels. We have these laws to protect citizens. Apple does not have the right to destroy your property intentionally or otherwise. If they do it intentionally, it is a criminal action. If they knew or should have known their actions will destroy your property that is negligence.
We know that Apple knows that there are people using modified iPhones, we also know that Apple knows that this update will destroy those phones. If they take actions to (1) destroy those phones, that's criminal. If they (2) fail to protect those people who have modified phones that's negligence. If they (3) take steps to make those phones unusable, regardless of the warranty, they are responsible and must replace them or refund your money.
Think of it this way, if you but a Mustang from Ford and modify the engine. You void your manufacturer's drive train warranty, this is true. If, however, you take your Mustang to the dealer for service, and their actions (negligence or deliberate) destroy your motor, then Ford, by relationship to it's dealer, and the dealer is responsible.
It has *nothing* to do with the warranty. The warranty does not define your rights. That *is* the law.
How sad it has become that people accept so easily when someone takes their rights away.
You own the damn phone! Its yours. If Apple intentionally creates something to destroy it, it is criminal. Not only that, if it is found out that they knew they could have protected modified phones that is criminal as well.
There are consumer protection laws for this type of behavior, and owner of the iPhone should make use of them.
If you do something to unlock it and it bricks, well you shouldn't have violated the warranty by unlocking it.
Unlocking it does not stop it from working. Warranties are *NOT* a declaration of rights, they are merely what the corporation is responsible for in absence of consumer protection laws where you live.
You should feel happy that Apple is warning people that if they unlocked the phone they shouldn't install the update. They didn't have to do that.
You should feel happy that Apple creates software designed to destroy *YOUR* property? Are you forgetting its YOUR phone?
You can be sure that any iPhone returned for warranty will be checked for unlocking and returned unfixed if found. As has been said many times, you can sue anybody for anything in the US. In this case, you won't win.
A warranty is *NOT* the limits of your rights. You have rights beyond the warranty. If you own something, you have the RIGHT to not have it intentionally broken by someone else.
If there is proof that Apple intentionally did something to brake these phones, it is a criminal action.
If you own something, its yours. You paid for it, you paid taxes on your purchase, you completed the transaction.
If a company intentionally destroys your property and thus denies you the rightful use of your property, how is that *ANY* different than a DDOS?
If Apple does this, it should be sued into the ground. I'm not talking just statutory damages, I'm talking "punitive" damages intended to reduce the likelihood they do this crap again. If every iPhone use who gets bricked sues for $1m, it could be interesting.
I am sick of U.S. companies treating customers like shit. Damn it! Make a good product, sell a million of them, and support your customers. What the hell is so difficult about that formula? It is the basis of real capitalism, not this fascist lock you in and bend you over crap companies are doing today.
All belief systems break down at some point, be they economic, religious, or philosophical. "Capitalism" breaks down at the edges, i.e. when you have too little capital to compete or too much capital that no one else can.
Microsoft has reached a functional monopoly on commodity computers. This is a fact and not subject to argument at this point in time. The problem is what to do to limit it's affect on the free market?
I was uncomfortable with the EU forcing Windows to be broken up, they is determining what MS could do internally and that seemed wrong. However, the unbundling seems like a perfect solution.
Personally, I HATE having to buy windows or jump through hoops to get my money back, and that is the wrong the consumers need corrected.
Just like RAM size or hard disk size or CPU, consumers need to see a line item and associated costs. This helps the OEMs because now they can focus on their business and compete on a level playing field -- not on the whim of Microsoft's vendor agreements for Windows costs.
Any OEM daring to offer Linux or other alternative gets threatened by Microsoft's license discount process. This will take that advantage away. The OEMs won't be held hostage by Microsoft's pricing blackmail.
Consumers' will see the real price of the bug-ridden filth that is Windows and be able to make a real choice.
Microsoft will be able to built Windows they way the want without EU interference and will be free to compete on a level playing ground.
The only loss is the bundled "default" windows win. Microsoft will have to, again, work to get and keep its customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Another whiner, "I need Windows bla bla bla"
I'm sorry, while I understand a lack of control over corporate policy (That's why I only mentioned home use.) Your home is where you have control.
As far as I'm concerned, if, at home, you run one piece of Microsoft software, licensed or otherwise, you are part of the Microsoft problem.
Its like obesity or alcoholism, to change away from Microsoft does take some work. If you are not willing to work for that goal, you are part of the problem. People who whine about Microsoft but don't take a stand are lazy cowards who perpetuate the situation they complain about. Face it, you are in an busive relationship and you need to get out.
Seriously, I was working at a medical imaging company in 1995 and testing a number of systems (QNX, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Windows 95, Windows NT, and Windows 3.11) to create a turn-key medical imaging system. Not one of the MS offerings were stable enough to call a product. Every morning, EVERY MORNING, the NT box was blue screened.
Linux was good at the time, but NetBSD, FreeBSD, and QNX were all great. NetBSD was smaller, but since we were going to use x86 design, we focused on FreeBSD and Linux. FreeBSD was better, but Linux had more active development and seemed like a better bet.
Because of that experience, I dropped Windows at home. In my house, we run Linux or OS/X on our computers.
Since that day, I become more and more bewildered that people continue to put up with that crap. Seriously, who needs it. Of late, OpenOffice.org does what you need.
It was actually Harry Houdini (Erich Weisz) that was one of the first proponents of the "do it once and make profit forever" media visionaries.
In the abstract, it make a lot of sense, and in its own way fair. Harry knew that age and injury would eventually destroy his ability to make money. This new "moving picture thing" was a way he could perfect his skill and make money showing people his tricks without the personal risks, expense, and the inevitable corruption of age.
This made sense when distribution and production of this material was in and of itself and expensive proposition. By the very nature of the medium be scarce, you could charge for viewership.
The problem with the internet, and one the copyright cartels don't like, fully understand but refuse to accept, is that the internet and computers remove the scarcity of the medium. There is no resource based "natural" regulation of the flow of media.
Make no mistake, this is the downfall of civilization as we know it. A civilization were information is *free* as in beer and as in access is a threat to ALL governments, even the ones we think are democratic.
Without regulation, without "profit" in the system, (which translates to expensive barriers to entry) common people can participate. When common people participate, history shows that wealthy people and powerful governments crumble.
The 21st century will be exciting!
The problem is "Obvious" to whom?
There are a number of things that are perfectly obvious to me that may not be obvious to someone else. One of the things I think is lacking is the notion, actually used in patent law, "obvious to someone skilled in the art." But what "art?" Software engineering is not one art. Like it or not, it is splitting into a number of (sometimes and sometimes not) overlapping fields.
Web, GUI, networking, search, OS, embedded, etc. these are all specializations and what is obvious to an OS guy may be completely incomprehensible to a web guy. An OS guy who only sees mouse clicks as merely system interrupts may not think 1-click is obvious, hell he probably doesn't even like mice.
The 1-click patent is totally obvious and trivial to anyone doing any sort of GUI and/or web programming.
Microsoft Vista is analogous to George W. Bush in so many ways. Arrogance, insecurity, spying, ineptitude, the list goes on.
Unfortunately, Linux is too much like the democrats, infighting, indecision, incapable of grasping opportunity.
Mac? Apple is just as evil, if not more so, as Microsoft, they just don't have the same amount of money.
Merely being "suspicious" is not illegal. Mere suspicion is not enough for probable cause. This is INSANE!
Little girls who can't sing dancing on stage with no cloths
Why is this a problem?
It may not be a problem, but it really isn't "music" either.
Well, yes, the music does suck, but it's not like music overall has gotten better or worse over the years. Remember the old rule, "95% of everything is crap?" It was true 50 years ago when the record labels were making out like gangbusters and it's still true today. The only difference now is that no one remembers lousy bubble-gum pop bands from the early 1960s like "The Archies." "The music sucks" isn't a real problem-- it's code for "get off my lawn."
You may say that, and while I respect your statement, when "I" was in high school and later, my generation listened to the music of our generation. We had the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeplen, etc. Want to know what high school kids listen too today? The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeplin, etc. Only the jr. high schoolers go for the pop crap these days.
The rare stuff that is good, is, um, rare. The techno talentless crap that shows up on MTV awards sucks. That's why kids aren't buying it.
Sorry, no one is addressing the real problems:
The music sucks. Maybe one good song on an album.
Little girls who can't sing dancing on stage with no cloths
Utter and complete pathological need to control the content
contempt for their customers
Failure to recognize that people like music on CDs, MP3 playes, and their computers and don't want to pay three times.
Its funny, but about 10 years ago, a nail polish company was found to be negligent because its nail polish did not cure chigger bites. While they did not advertise or claim to support that use of their product, they were held negligent for the failure because it was a "common" practice and the knew or should have known that was a use of their product.
I don't know the specific laws or decisions off the top of my head, but suffice to say an OEM's warranty only applies in the absence of relevant statute.
since the software for the iPhones whole purpose is based around the AT&T network, yet it does mean they do not have to support it.
....., seeing as the same basic software with a few small modifications works with other phone companies, it doesn't seem all to promising.
This would have to be an assertion for the defense, but
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
They did. They told you not to fuck around with modifications, dummy.
Depending on the applicable laws, they probably don't have the right to demand that you do not modify YOUR property.
if, they can't prove that *you* damaged the device, and mere modification is not necessarily "damage," regardless of their protestations, they have legal responsibilities. If an expert testifies and can prove the modifications made do not harm the unit, and all reports seem to indicate that, Apple is responsible regardless of what ever their warranty says.
Since hacking your phone to allow it to use other carriers SIM card both voids your AT&T contract AND your warranty with Apple, Apple legally has no obligation to support it at that point.
Only in so far as the modifications affect "supportable" operation. For instance, if the modifications keep it from connecting to the AT&T network, they don't have to fix that, but that does not free them of further responsibility.
People wake up!! All the people posting here that, somehow, the warranty defines your rights or a manufacturer's responsibilities are absolutely 100% wrong.
Federal, state, and local statutes trump warranties every time. You have rights, and Apple has responsibilities!!!
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
Any defense of Apple that does not account for law or relevant legal precedent are, at best, flawed.
All the people posting here that, somehow, the warranty defines your rights or a manufacturer's responsibilities are absolutely 100% wrong.
Federal, state, and local statutes trump warranties every time.
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
Any defense of Apple that does not account for law or relevant legal precedent are, at best, flawed.
Bullshit
Sorry, but in a debate, a curse word usually means you are wrong but refuse to admit it.
Apple releases updates for iPhones. An unlocked iPhone is no longer an iPhone, it is an unlocked iPhone.
There is no legal or logical basis for this statement.
Applying an update for one piece of hardware to another can and will fuck it up. Since one would have to be at least somewhat in the know, technically, to even know what unlocking is, and even more informed to actually unlock it, Apple can assume that owners of unlocked phones would know that this is a possibility.
Conjecture with no supporting argument.
Once you mod your hardware, you are essentially trading your warranty for a superior experience.
A warranty does not define your rights, federal, state, and local statutes do. Warranties only disclaim, where not otherwise granted by statute, the responsibilities of the manufacturer.
The warranty is *only* what the company agrees to do about a defective product in absence of consumer protection laws and ownership rights.
Beyond the warranty, you have a wide range of rights to use your property regardless of who makes it. You own it. Its yours. You may void the company warranty, but you don't abandon your legal rights.
Well, you would be destroying it by applying an update to hardware that has been modified and is, as a result, incompatible with that update.
It is arguable, and probably winnable, that you assume Apple's updates are safe.
If Apple destroys your property, through deliberate action or negligence, i.e. producing an update that bricks your phone, they are legally responsible.
The fact that it is widely published that there are iPhones out there that are modified, and Apple as acknowledged this, Apple *must* exercise ordinary care to protect these phones. That's the law.
Yes it is your phone and Apple doesn't owe you anything more than what you paid for. These firmware updates are a free service provided by Apple. Apple has no obligation to support third-party modified phones if they don't want to.
You are the perfect consumer, you know absolutely nothing about your rights and argue that it is OK when a manufacturer tries to screw you over.
There are consumer protection laws in the U.S.A. on the federal, state, and local levels. We have these laws to protect citizens. Apple does not have the right to destroy your property intentionally or otherwise. If they do it intentionally, it is a criminal action. If they knew or should have known their actions will destroy your property that is negligence.
We know that Apple knows that there are people using modified iPhones, we also know that Apple knows that this update will destroy those phones. If they take actions to (1) destroy those phones, that's criminal. If they (2) fail to protect those people who have modified phones that's negligence. If they (3) take steps to make those phones unusable, regardless of the warranty, they are responsible and must replace them or refund your money.
Think of it this way, if you but a Mustang from Ford and modify the engine. You void your manufacturer's drive train warranty, this is true. If, however, you take your Mustang to the dealer for service, and their actions (negligence or deliberate) destroy your motor, then Ford, by relationship to it's dealer, and the dealer is responsible.
It has *nothing* to do with the warranty. The warranty does not define your rights. That *is* the law.
If a company intentionally destroys your property and thus denies you the rightful use of your property, how is that *ANY* different than a DDOS?
It's not distributed?
Well, if I said "DOS" it would have meant something entirely different.
How sad it has become that people accept so easily when someone takes their rights away.
You own the damn phone! Its yours. If Apple intentionally creates something to destroy it, it is criminal. Not only that, if it is found out that they knew they could have protected modified phones that is criminal as well.
There are consumer protection laws for this type of behavior, and owner of the iPhone should make use of them.
The iPhone as purchased continues to work
Not if you install the update.
If you do something to unlock it and it bricks, well you shouldn't have violated the warranty by unlocking it.
Unlocking it does not stop it from working. Warranties are *NOT* a declaration of rights, they are merely what the corporation is responsible for in absence of consumer protection laws where you live.
You should feel happy that Apple is warning people that if they unlocked the phone they shouldn't install the update. They didn't have to do that.
You should feel happy that Apple creates software designed to destroy *YOUR* property? Are you forgetting its YOUR phone?
You can be sure that any iPhone returned for warranty will be checked for unlocking and returned unfixed if found. As has been said many times, you can sue anybody for anything in the US. In this case, you won't win.
A warranty is *NOT* the limits of your rights. You have rights beyond the warranty. If you own something, you have the RIGHT to not have it intentionally broken by someone else.
If there is proof that Apple intentionally did something to brake these phones, it is a criminal action.
If you own something, its yours. You paid for it, you paid taxes on your purchase, you completed the transaction.
If a company intentionally destroys your property and thus denies you the rightful use of your property, how is that *ANY* different than a DDOS?
If Apple does this, it should be sued into the ground. I'm not talking just statutory damages, I'm talking "punitive" damages intended to reduce the likelihood they do this crap again. If every iPhone use who gets bricked sues for $1m, it could be interesting.
I am sick of U.S. companies treating customers like shit. Damn it! Make a good product, sell a million of them, and support your customers. What the hell is so difficult about that formula? It is the basis of real capitalism, not this fascist lock you in and bend you over crap companies are doing today.
If something you do that intentionally destroys private property, that is absolutely something that can be brought to court.
I think it is time to stop thinking of Apple as anything less than an even more evil version of Microsoft with slightly less money.
All belief systems break down at some point, be they economic, religious, or philosophical. "Capitalism" breaks down at the edges, i.e. when you have too little capital to compete or too much capital that no one else can.
Microsoft has reached a functional monopoly on commodity computers. This is a fact and not subject to argument at this point in time. The problem is what to do to limit it's affect on the free market?
I was uncomfortable with the EU forcing Windows to be broken up, they is determining what MS could do internally and that seemed wrong. However, the unbundling seems like a perfect solution.
Personally, I HATE having to buy windows or jump through hoops to get my money back, and that is the wrong the consumers need corrected.
Just like RAM size or hard disk size or CPU, consumers need to see a line item and associated costs. This helps the OEMs because now they can focus on their business and compete on a level playing field -- not on the whim of Microsoft's vendor agreements for Windows costs.
Any OEM daring to offer Linux or other alternative gets threatened by Microsoft's license discount process. This will take that advantage away. The OEMs won't be held hostage by Microsoft's pricing blackmail.
Consumers' will see the real price of the bug-ridden filth that is Windows and be able to make a real choice.
Microsoft will be able to built Windows they way the want without EU interference and will be free to compete on a level playing ground.
The only loss is the bundled "default" windows win. Microsoft will have to, again, work to get and keep its customers.
No one loses.