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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've actually had problems with Monster Cables with over-tight, over-engineered connectors that are stronger than those on the device the plug into. If something is going to break when I am plugging and unplugging cables, I'd rather that it be the cable that the component (although with some Monster cables, the cost of replacing the cable can rival the cost of the component).
The rate of evolution can reasonably be expected to depend upon the mutation rate, selection pressure, and the generation time. It is certainly possible to set up conditions in the laboratory in which the mutation rate is limiting. I'd like to see the actual paper to see why they concluded that the mutation rate is limiting in the wild.
Even more absurd than the speaker cables (where there are some minimal real issues such as gauge and quality of connectors), people shell out big bucks for "high end" power cables, presumably not thinking about the fact that the power company's wiring, and the wiring in their walls, is the cheapest basic copper wiring available.
My experience has been quite different. After hearing complaints about it, I've been pleasantly surprised at how well EDGE works and how fast it is. It's not as fast as wifi, to be sure, but it's quite fast enough for simple browsing of all of the web sites that I commonly visit.
I want it both ways - I want continued updates and improvements to my new mobile computer from Apple, and I want to be able to do other interesting things with my new mobile computer that fill a niche that Apple understandably wouldn't be writing software for.
Is it unreasonable for me, an Apple customer and shareholder, to want this?
No, it's not unreasonable for you to want this. Or an Apple branded tablet computer. Or an Apple branded subnotebook.
I'd like some of these myself. But the iPhone is not that product and never claimed to be.
Apple doesn't oppose native application development...Rather, Apple takes a neutral stance - they're not going to stop anyone from writing apps, and they're not going to maliciously design software updates to break the native apps, but they're not going to care if their software updates accidentally break the native apps either.
So it doesn't sound like Apple is opposed to 3rd party development per se. On the other hand, Apple has stated definitively that they will take steps to stop "unlocking" of the iPhone from the AT&T service (which they are probably obligated to do by their contract with AT&T). So it is probably the unlockers who spoiled the party for those who merely wanted to install 3rd party applications. At least one of the unlocking methods worked by exploiting a buffer overflow. Clearly, allowing users to run arbitrary code on the iPhone opens up huge opportunities for supporting such vulnerabilities. So to live up to their contract with AT&T, Apple probably will have to exercise some control over what applications are installed on the iPhone.
This of course leaves open the possibility that Apple might, at some point in the future, provide some mechanism for "approved" 3rd party applications to install on the iPhone. But 3rd party applications are clearly not a big part of Apple's business model for the iPhone, so it's probably not a big priority. Moreover, any such mechanism would have to be consistent with the security requirements of Apple's deal with AT&T, so it won't be a simple matter.
According to engadget many unlocked iPhones are coming through the upgrade unbricked, albeit with loss of their hacked capabilities. It seems to depend upon how you unlocked your phone.
So the notion that Apple's software is designed to recognize (which should be pretty easy) and disable modified phones seems to be false. It sounds more like Apple simply didn't bother to test and debut the upgrade with all of the hacked configurations. And why should they? After all, when you choose to violate the warranty by messing with the "not user serviceable" parts of a device, you do it at your own risk.
It's TOTALLY LEGAL to unlock your cellphone now in the US. If apple pushed an "update" that even partially was designed to relock it or brick it, they have clearly violated one of the provisions in the recent copyright board ruling.
The ruling does not require manufacturers to continue to provide updates to unlocked cell phones. The update was not "pushed" out to the phone. It was a voluntary update, and users were specifically warned not to install the update if the phone had been unlocked, and that the phone could be damaged by an attempt to install the update.
Here's your car analogy, you bought some car, the included media player was brand X, you yanked it, installed Y, even though in the fine print it said you shouldn't do that. You take it in for the scheduled 20,000 mile mainteance or whatever -the "update" - and the tech notices your changed radio which now violates "specs", so they trash your engine, hand you back the keys and say "oh well, you voided our warranty".
It's more like this. You bring the car in for its update, and they say, "the manufacturer has provided a part to improve the performance of the engine, but I see that you have modified your car's engine. If I install this part, it is almost certain to ruin your engine." And you say, "I'm entitled to that part, I insist that you install it." And the serviceman says, "OK, it's your funeral." And installs the part. And when you start the car, smoke comes out of the engine and it seizes up. And you get mad and threaten to sue.
Yes, you can "choose" to not take your car in for the update, but normal business says that is what is expected by the consumer.
You don't believe that there are modifications that you can make to a car that would void the warranty?
Not sure, but I think that was kind of the poster's point. That businesses shouldn't be able to be able to specify the consumer's after-market modifications to the system.
The warranty specifies which uses of a product fall within the warranty and which do not. Installing 3rd party software on a PC is normally permitted, but there are any number of after-market modifications that you can make to your PC that would void the warranty, such as modifying the motherboard or rewriting the system's FLASH ROM. Some manufacturers will not support PCs if you change the OS.
I think you might be able to make an argument about the warnings given by Apple before the update was even released. They released the update, knowing that it would destroy a large number of phones, and they have admitted knowing before the fact in public.
It seems to me that they took action--by publicizing the problem, and including a prominent notice warning owners of modified phones not to install the update--to prevent the owners from destroying their phones by installing the update.
The illegal part might be intentionally destroying the property of people who installed the update.
It would be pretty hard to prove intentionality, especially since Apple went to considerable lengths to warn people with modified iPhones not to install the update. That sounds as if they are trying to protect the people who modified their phones. I could well be a bug that Apple did not feel obligated to chase down and fix.
I don't think there's room for a differentiated pocket sized device. But I agree that something like 4x5 or 5x7 would be a nice product. I also think there's a market for a ultralight subnotebook (which might have touch/tablet capability).
It would be something else altogether when I would come back only to discover my car was rendered full unusable (far below the state it was in when I brought it in for maintainance) because some dipsh*t thought my modification gave him the right to molest my car any way he saw fit.
So the new driveshaft comes with a big notice that says WARNING!! THIS DRIVESHAFT MAY DAMAGE YOUR CAR AND RENDER IT UNUSABLE IF INSTALLED IN A CAR WITH A MODIFIED ENGINE!" And you ignore the warning, install it anyway...and what do you know, it damages your car! So you run around complaining that the manufacturer is "some dipsh*t [who] thought my modification gave him the right to molest my car any way he saw fit"
They don't HAVE to be in support of all software imaginable or not yet imagined. Why can they NOT be multi-carrier?
Why can they NOT give it away for free? Maybe because they are a business with financial obligations to their shareholders?
How'd such a deal ever make it past any Congressional hearings or sub-committees?
Do you imagine that this is the first time a hardware manufacturer ever had an exclusive contract with a vendor? The legality of such contracts is firmly established. The iPhone isn't even the first cell phone to have an exclusive contract with a carrier?
They do have an obligation under law to ensure they don't damage the consumer's iphone since the DMCA permits that cell phones can be unlocked legally. To damage that is the violate the very law that protects the consumer's right to unlock the phone.
You have a right to unlock your iPhone. But you don't have a right to install updates from Apple after you do it. Apple announced that the iPhone update was only compatible with unmodified iPhones. Do you really imagine that somebody who used a product (the update) in a way that is directly contrary to the manufacturer's instructions has a claim?
So, just like Apple's bogus claim that they only allow OSX to run on their own hardware because...um, something to do with the way they put hardware together being "better" than the way anyone else puts hardware together, and how they only have to support drivers for one set of hardware, even though it's totally vanilla hardware.
Have you been living in a cave, or something? For quite a while, Apple has been providing--at not extra cost--software that makes it possible to install Windows on any Intel-based Mac. The only thing they don't do is sell or support Windows.
Anyone who harbors the delusion that when they buy a device they actually own it and can do what they want has clearly not been paying attention to any technology of the last 5-10 years.
I believe that I own it and can do what I want with it. But I don't believe that I get to have it both ways--either I choose to have an ongoing relationship with Apple or I don't. I can't insist that it's mine and I can do what I want, but that Apple is obligated to continue to provide me with upgrades and enhancements, and to make sure that they don't cause any problems with whatever weird thing that I've chosen to do to "my" device.
As for the people who "bricked" their phones: Nobody forced them to run the update, and they had fair warning. Eventually, I'm sure that somebody will figure out how to get those iPhones going again. If you aren't willing to risk an interruption in function, you don't update in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
And then he came back and put a gun to their head and forced them to apply the update...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've actually had problems with Monster Cables with over-tight, over-engineered connectors that are stronger than those on the device the plug into. If something is going to break when I am plugging and unplugging cables, I'd rather that it be the cable that the component (although with some Monster cables, the cost of replacing the cable can rival the cost of the component).
The rate of evolution can reasonably be expected to depend upon the mutation rate, selection pressure, and the generation time. It is certainly possible to set up conditions in the laboratory in which the mutation rate is limiting. I'd like to see the actual paper to see why they concluded that the mutation rate is limiting in the wild.
Even more absurd than the speaker cables (where there are some minimal real issues such as gauge and quality of connectors), people shell out big bucks for "high end" power cables, presumably not thinking about the fact that the power company's wiring, and the wiring in their walls, is the cheapest basic copper wiring available.
My experience has been quite different. After hearing complaints about it, I've been pleasantly surprised at how well EDGE works and how fast it is. It's not as fast as wifi, to be sure, but it's quite fast enough for simple browsing of all of the web sites that I commonly visit.
No, it's not unreasonable for you to want this. Or an Apple branded tablet computer. Or an Apple branded subnotebook.
I'd like some of these myself. But the iPhone is not that product and never claimed to be.
So it doesn't sound like Apple is opposed to 3rd party development per se. On the other hand, Apple has stated definitively that they will take steps to stop "unlocking" of the iPhone from the AT&T service (which they are probably obligated to do by their contract with AT&T). So it is probably the unlockers who spoiled the party for those who merely wanted to install 3rd party applications. At least one of the unlocking methods worked by exploiting a buffer overflow. Clearly, allowing users to run arbitrary code on the iPhone opens up huge opportunities for supporting such vulnerabilities. So to live up to their contract with AT&T, Apple probably will have to exercise some control over what applications are installed on the iPhone.
This of course leaves open the possibility that Apple might, at some point in the future, provide some mechanism for "approved" 3rd party applications to install on the iPhone. But 3rd party applications are clearly not a big part of Apple's business model for the iPhone, so it's probably not a big priority. Moreover, any such mechanism would have to be consistent with the security requirements of Apple's deal with AT&T, so it won't be a simple matter.
I'm not holding my breath.
According to engadget many unlocked iPhones are coming through the upgrade unbricked, albeit with loss of their hacked capabilities. It seems to depend upon how you unlocked your phone.
So the notion that Apple's software is designed to recognize (which should be pretty easy) and disable modified phones seems to be false. It sounds more like Apple simply didn't bother to test and debut the upgrade with all of the hacked configurations. And why should they? After all, when you choose to violate the warranty by messing with the "not user serviceable" parts of a device, you do it at your own risk.
The ruling does not require manufacturers to continue to provide updates to unlocked cell phones. The update was not "pushed" out to the phone. It was a voluntary update, and users were specifically warned not to install the update if the phone had been unlocked, and that the phone could be damaged by an attempt to install the update.
It's more like this. You bring the car in for its update, and they say, "the manufacturer has provided a part to improve the performance of the engine, but I see that you have modified your car's engine. If I install this part, it is almost certain to ruin your engine." And you say, "I'm entitled to that part, I insist that you install it." And the serviceman says, "OK, it's your funeral." And installs the part. And when you start the car, smoke comes out of the engine and it seizes up. And you get mad and threaten to sue.
You don't believe that there are modifications that you can make to a car that would void the warranty?
The warranty specifies which uses of a product fall within the warranty and which do not. Installing 3rd party software on a PC is normally permitted, but there are any number of after-market modifications that you can make to your PC that would void the warranty, such as modifying the motherboard or rewriting the system's FLASH ROM. Some manufacturers will not support PCs if you change the OS.
It seems to me that they took action--by publicizing the problem, and including a prominent notice warning owners of modified phones not to install the update--to prevent the owners from destroying their phones by installing the update.
It would be pretty hard to prove intentionality, especially since Apple went to considerable lengths to warn people with modified iPhones not to install the update. That sounds as if they are trying to protect the people who modified their phones. I could well be a bug that Apple did not feel obligated to chase down and fix.
I don't think there's room for a differentiated pocket sized device. But I agree that something like 4x5 or 5x7 would be a nice product. I also think there's a market for a ultralight subnotebook (which might have touch/tablet capability).
Gee, you think?
But, but...that would mean that Apple would have be some kind of business with a responsibility to make money for its shareholders, wouldn't it?
I thought they were a charity....
So the new driveshaft comes with a big notice that says WARNING!! THIS DRIVESHAFT MAY DAMAGE YOUR CAR AND RENDER IT UNUSABLE IF INSTALLED IN A CAR WITH A MODIFIED ENGINE!" And you ignore the warning, install it anyway...and what do you know, it damages your car! So you run around complaining that the manufacturer is "some dipsh*t [who] thought my modification gave him the right to molest my car any way he saw fit"
Or would that be dumb?
Why can they NOT give it away for free? Maybe because they are a business with financial obligations to their shareholders?
Do you imagine that this is the first time a hardware manufacturer ever had an exclusive contract with a vendor? The legality of such contracts is firmly established. The iPhone isn't even the first cell phone to have an exclusive contract with a carrier?
You have a right to unlock your iPhone. But you don't have a right to install updates from Apple after you do it. Apple announced that the iPhone update was only compatible with unmodified iPhones. Do you really imagine that somebody who used a product (the update) in a way that is directly contrary to the manufacturer's instructions has a claim?
Have you been living in a cave, or something? For quite a while, Apple has been providing--at not extra cost--software that makes it possible to install Windows on any Intel-based Mac. The only thing they don't do is sell or support Windows.
I believe that I own it and can do what I want with it. But I don't believe that I get to have it both ways--either I choose to have an ongoing relationship with Apple or I don't. I can't insist that it's mine and I can do what I want, but that Apple is obligated to continue to provide me with upgrades and enhancements, and to make sure that they don't cause any problems with whatever weird thing that I've chosen to do to "my" device.
As for the people who "bricked" their phones: Nobody forced them to run the update, and they had fair warning. Eventually, I'm sure that somebody will figure out how to get those iPhones going again. If you aren't willing to risk an interruption in function, you don't update in the first place.