Jobs' Next Fight — Dealing With iPhone Hackers

An anonymous reader writes "With Steve Jobs' recent announcement of his intention to fight off the independent iPhone developers, the question worth asking is: How will Apple try to defeat the hackers: Software updates, or lawsuits? Will Apple risk losing its most frequently (ab)used legal tool, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in order to try and punish the developers of the iPhone unlocking tools? This CNET article explores the legal issues involved in this, which make it perfectly legal to reverse engineer your own iPhone, but illegal to share your circumventing source code with others."

Easy to pay!

[cez (539085)]

TFA:

Other hacks, such as the much hyped iPhone Dev Team's anySIM unlocking tool, or the numerous free-ringtone tutorials that have been floating around the Net, can be more accurately described as a developer-lead attack upon Apple's revenue streams.

...ummm no, it means that people in a position too are trying to help others not get screwed by a vendor locked-in product that wants to charge you for a ringtone that you can make yourself. Instead of attacking developers who wish to enlighten a public entranced by Apple, perhaps they shouldn't base a revenue stream on vendor lockin and ripoff ringtones. If you ask me (flame on that noones asking), they should be the ones providing such a ringtone app. They are all about ease of use for the masses... oh wait, I forgot its easier for someone to pay them then do it themselves.

Re:Easy to pay!

[cez (539085)]

I didn't mention anything about being forced to buy an iphone....but if Apple had their way, they would force those that did buy it to buy ringtones from them as well, instead of making free ones which is their right. Hell even if it was a ringtone of their kid singing whatever it is that kids sing, should u not have a way to make that your ringtone without Apple crying foul?

on the other hand, it seems that they are trying to force someone who did buy the iphone and ATT package not to unlock the phone and goto another provider. Perhaps someone needs to move for work or goes over seas? Hell... they could pay their contract cancelation fee, but according to Apple, they shouldn't be able to open the phone and use another provider that has better service, or any service even, where they are.

AT&T will NOT unlock iPhones

[daveschroeder (516195)]

From the sidebar of the very article you link [usatoday.com]:

AT&T will unlock phones for customers once they have fulfilled their contracts, which typically run one to two years. One big exception: Apple's iPhone, distributed exclusively in the USA by AT&T. "That's different," says AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel.

For how the iPhone is "different", see here [slashdot.org].

Re:Easy to pay!

[MightyYar (622222)]

The iPhone doesn't have "terms" - it is a physical device, not intellectual property. The hardware can be interesting enough to buy (and useful) all by itself. You own it, not Apple, and they cannot dictate what you do with it.

Re:Easy to pay!

[cez (539085)]

You forgot the part where you argue that it's OK to break the law when it's convenient for you.

yeah ummm, right right! Forgot that...sorry it's so hard to remember everything posting to slashdot while speeding, talking on my cell phone, typing on the unlocked iPhone I hacked - using un-authorized Wifi of course - and smoking god knows what (gotta love those end of the month specials my dealer puts together with uppers downers and inbetweeners) and a cigarette while this kid in the backseat won't stop spilling her jack and coke. (I'd say he was my kid, but the mom's only 14, so you know that wouldn't sound good.)

Arr!

[ackthpt (218170)]

They be takin' on the Jolly Roger. I be thinkin' they be changin' the iPhone to detect meddlin' with their cabal. Add a checksum or something.

Lawsuits be expensive.

Re:Arr!

[thornmaker (794873)]

ironic, this coming from a man who 'went into business briefly in 1974 to build "blue boxes" that allowed illicit free long distance calls' (so says wikipedia)

iPhone...

[headkase (533448)]

Too bad for Jobs that it is legal to unlock your iPhone to use it with a different carrier [pcmag.com].

Totally missing the point

[daveschroeder (516195)]

Yes, it is. (And apparently you didn't read any of the linked articles, because there are a lot more issues here [slashdot.org].)

But it the manufacturer doesn't have to allow or enable it. If you can figure it out, great. But if they also stop that same unlocking procedure in future software or hardware iterations of the phone, they can.

And I really don't think Apple will be "relocking" phones...they'll likely just be plugging the holes that allowed them to be unlocked in the first place in future firmware versions. That said, I guess I wouldn't be stunned if some unlocked phones broke, intentionally or otherwise. But all of this has NO BEARING on the DMCA exception. The vendor is under zero obligation to enable unlocking.

So it's not "too bad for Jobs" at all, unfortunately.

Really?

[minginqunt (225413)]

Does Apple truly have much to lose from iPhone hackery?

The only people this really harms is AT&T, and Jobs has never shown the slightest inclination before towards caring about a business partner getting fucked over. If it suits his needs, he'll probably want Apple to subtly encourage it.

I would.

Re:Really?

[click2005 (921437)]

It might just be he has to show hes trying to stop the iphone hacking. Jobs isn't stupid. He knows stopping the hacking will be almost impossible. At least now AT&T cant sue Apple for their not taking action.

Yes.

[daveschroeder (516195)]

Does Apple truly have much to lose from iPhone hackery?

Yes. [thestreet.com]

To say nothing of other intangibles like wanting to guarantee a seamless user experience with iTunes, activation, the carrier partner, etc.

A few issues

[daveschroeder (516195)]

For the record, I will be surprised if Apple actively tries to re-lock already-unlocked phones, but I would not be surprised if they try to prevent unlocking in future firmware updates, considering the current unlock mechanism uses an overflow condition that will likely be, well, fixed in future updates (should Apple not fix a potentially exploitable buffer overflow on the iPhone?). Then, someone will find some other exploitable condition to unlock the iPhone, and the game continues.

Every GSM handset under the sun has been unlocked. The main difference with iPhone is that people are more likely to do regular full firmware updates with the iPhone due to the kind of product it is and the ease of doing so via iTunes, as opposed to other GSM handsets. But I can't see Apple relocking already-unlocked phones.

That said, while an explicit exemption [arstechnica.com] exists that allows end customers to legally unlock GSM handsets in the US, no such requirement exists for a vendor to allow it, document it, or provide such a capability to the customer (see also "DMCA Exemption Attorney Weighs in on iPhone Unlocking" [ipodobserver.com].

Further, requirements in various jurisdictions that the carrier provide a means to unlock the handset after the contract term, i.e., after the subsidy is paid, MAY NOT at all apply to the iPhone, since the iPhone is technically unsubsidized. Apple appears to be negotiating backchannel subsidies and unprecedented monthly kickbacks [thestreet.com] from carriers...but the iPhone itself still isn't subsidized under the traditional subsidy model: you can buy an iPhone, walk out, and NEVER activate it, and the phone is yours to keep. However, this may also mean that no carrier is ever obligated to unlock it for you.

Also, Apple is depending on the expected profits from AT&T kickbacks for AT&T activations...that's how the iPhone price is structured. Now, if you can figure out how to unlock your phone and use it on another carrier, great. But also don't cry if Apple throws roadblocks in the way. You can argue that "it's only good for Apple" if people get to use unlocked iPhones, but that's not your decision to make, unfortunately - it's Apple's. Don't get me wrong: YOU can decide it's good for YOU. But you don't get to decide that it's good for Apple, or anyone else. And with things like seamless activation via iTunes, Visual Voicemail, and all the tight integration that requires enormous amounts of backend cooperation with the carrier partner (think about how iPhone activation works and how it must have been to pull something like that off), is it any surprise Apple wants to keep the iPhone experience with the carrier partner?

And think of all the other ways iPhone is unique: you get to walk out of the store with it sealed in a box, it can be easily bought as a gift, the customer does activation themselves in the comfort of their own homes with a pleasant interface, and so on.

So if people can figure out how to unlock the phone, great. But don't expect Apple to not fix actual bugs like buffer overflows in the phone that are coincidentally used to enable unlocking, and don't assume that ANYONE will ever be "required" to unlock iPhones, unless it is simply flat out illegal to have a SIMlocked phone in a particular jurisdiction, in which case Apple would probably elect to skip that market entirely.

This is a lot like the Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware arguments. People always say it's "better for Apple" or "free advertising for Apple". No. Pirating the OS is not good for Apple. And even if you say "but I'd buy it for $129!" that also doesn't solve it...the $129 price is predicated on the fact that there is Apple hardware that goes along with it. So then you say, "Well, I'd even pay $250 or more! Would that fix it?" No, because part of the Apple experience is the seamless integration and things "just workin

Re:A few issues

[daveschroeder (516195)]

Really? Given that the price of the iphone is in line with the non-subsidized prices of most other GSM phones of similar complexity, it seems like Apple is doing something wrong if what you say is true.

Yes, "really". Whether Apple is losing money or making $150 on each handset sold pre-activation, the price is still inherently structured to depend on AT&T kickbacks. If they weren't getting $150-$200 and 3%/month for existing customers and 10%/month for new customers on each iPhone activation from AT&T, do you think they wouldn't miss that money? The price is ABSOLUTELY structured depending on that money from AT how could it not be?

And how is Apple "doing something wrong"? You don't think it's okay to build a profit structure into a product? And you likely underestimate the amount of R&D in terms of both sheer money and manpower that went into the iPhone. If you think the iPhone is really fundamentally basically the same thing as numerous other smartphone-type devices, we'd probably disagree on that.

Whose job is it, Jobs?

[Speare (84249)]

Jobs said, "It's a constant cat and mouse game," according to ComputerWorld's account of the discussion. "We try to stay ahead. People will try to break in, and it's our job to stop them breaking in."

Mr. Jobs, can you tell us why it's your job to do that? You sell hardware. We are the customer. Is AT&T paying you to keep that exclusivity by all technical means? Oh, wait, I see. We are the consumer, not the customer. See, whenever industry uses the word consumer, it means there's someone else (such as another company) who is actually the customer. "The customer is always right" doesn't apply if we're just sheeple consumers.

Correction.

[juuri (7678)]

Mr. Jobs, can you tell us why it's your job to do that? You sell hardware. We are the customer.

People often get this wrong on Apple, like them or not, they don't sell hardware... or really software (much). Apple sells you a solution, an experience, a total package. Their focus and developments are all based on expected hardware and software components being in a certain order or place to ensure they can provide a specific experience to the end user.

In this case the contracts with the carriers probably have explicit clauses saying they will fight to combat unlocks in the same way they fix their aac every quarter or so to try and appease the music companies.

Re:Correction.

[Speare (84249)]

If Ford sells me an "experience" like a Mustang, and I decide to rip out the Ford stock stereo or take off the Ford street tires and replace it with an aftermarket stereo or racing whitewalls, that's my decision, not Ford's. And court precedent bears this out. Apple wants to explain that this is somehow different, but it's not. I'm the customer. I decide what "experience" to have with the product, after they've sold me the goods.

I'm not arguing their ability to put junk I don't want in there. I'm arguing that unless there's nefarious anti-consumer contracts with carriers, they have no right to "fix my experience" away from the configuration I choose. A patch to re-lock SIMs to a sole vendor is explicitly against the legal and moral arguments that define SIM transferrability. And if they do have those contracts, like Ford with Firestone or Ford with Panasonic, I say this is unconscionable and such contracts should be made void.

Unlocking is specifically allowed by DMCA

[Fallen Kell (165468)]

Exemptions are allowed for 1) the educational library of a university's media studies department, in order to watch film clips in class; 2) using computer software that requires the original disks or hardware in order to run; 3) dongle-protected computer programs, if the the dongle no longer functions and a replacement cannot be found; 4) protected e-books, in order to use screen-reader software; 5) cell phone firmware that ties a phone to a specific wireless network; and 6) DRM software included on audio CDs, but only when such software creates security vulnerabilities on personal computers.

This was an exemption introduced last year by the Register of Copyrights. Linky [arstechnica.com]

asswipes

[wamerocity (1106155)]

I love how companies don't deny your right to fair use, they just put restrictions around the device that make it illegal to even access fair use. That's like saying, "You have the right to free speech, but only at this designated microphone that can be found inside the 4th underground level at Area 51."

lip service more than anything

[Frag-A-Muffin (5490)]

I think Mr. Jobs is required to say things like this. How would it look to his big (and only) US carrier partner locked in for 5 years or whatever it is, if he said "We condone the hackers and their unlocking software". What they actually do about it will really tell the story, and that's a wait and see game, so no use speculating.

He's Talking to AT&T

[chowhound (136628)]

I believe that statement was for the benefit of AT&T and future partners. The fact of the matter is that since June 30th, Apple has released only two updates to the iPhone software. Is this the action of a company desperate to keep people out? Jobs is not concerned with hackers playing around with iPhones. Presumably they bought them, Apple got paid.

We take off and nuke them from orbit...

[xxxJonBoyxxx (565205)]

How will Apple try to defeat the hackers?

"We take off and nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure."

Bad summary

[Stu Charlton (1311)]

Both Steve Jobs [appleinsider.com] and Greg Joswiak [macrumors.com] have indicated they have a "neutral" stance on 3rd party hacking that's related to native application development. The area they have problems with is SIM unlocking.

I'm Canadian, I've been paying AT&T for a while (they make it a PITA too when you don't have a U.S. credit card). I don't have an issue paying AT&T money given how crappy our data plans are in Canada so far anyway.

Now, I've unlocked my phone, and am even happier. Sure, I'll be disappointed when future modem firmware updates break the unlock, but frankly, I expect it. There are no guarantees with hacking. But I also expect the hackers to overcome new firmware changes within a matter of days, unless there is a major software change to the way the iPhone firmware works (not likely).

Re:American-centric coverage

[CRCulver (715279)]

It was a typo. Yes, I know the article is about the iPhone, and my point still stands. From Hong Kong to Dubai, the iPhone is already widely available outside the U.S.

Re:I unlocked my Palm...

[p0tat03 (985078)]

It does everything the iPhone does, except calls

Oh yeah, that's like, totally a secondary feature anyway, I'm certainly not missing it. Who uses the iPhone as a phone?

I'd like to own an iPhone. Honestly, I would. But, though I can pay for the phone, only AT&T can own it. Jobs, Apple, and AT&T want it that way, and if you've paid for an iPhone, you've essentially told them that they can have your cake and eat it too.

Funny, as a Canadian I've never paid a penny to AT&T, and my iPhone works fine. While I would like a factory unlocked phone as much as the next guy, there are plenty of ways for us technically adept people to have OUR cake and eat it too.

The task which it can be programmed to do are limited only by the ingenuity and creativity of the programmer/user.

You're right. In fact this morning the beta for a cell-tower-triangulation tool that integrates with Google Maps just came out. iPhone development is chugging right along, and many tools are already very mature and usable.

Consumer benefit beyond the original purpose of the device is explicitly and legally forbidden.

FUD. I have every legal right in both the US and Canada to unlock my phone and install whatever the hell I want on it. Apple may not like it, and may even do pitifully ineffectual things to stop me, but the law is on MY side.

I hope those who buy the iPhone are prepared to deal with a future in which everything they possess is owned and licensed by a corporation.

What part of ownership do you not understand? Neither AT&T nor Apple own my iPhone, I do, in EVERY sense of the law. Apple has chosen to cripple the device, I have chosen to un-cripple it. They don't own anything of mine.