Slashdot Log In
Jobs' Next Fight — Dealing With iPhone Hackers
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:34 PM
from the or-you-could-just-open-it-up dept.
from the or-you-could-just-open-it-up dept.
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."
Related Stories
Submission: Jobs' Next Fight: DMCA lawsuits for iPhone Hackers by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
American-centric coverage (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPod is already available in countries without DMCA-style laws.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:American-centric coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it."
From http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed850 [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re:American-centric coverage (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Easy to pay! (Score:5, Insightful)
...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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Easy to pay! (Score:4, Informative)
- Once a contract has been fulfilled, Cicconi says AT&T will "gladly unlock" a customer's phone, if requested
Perhaps that means canceling prior to the 15-day or whatnot window most contracts allow. At least they're talking the right talk, I'd love to hear someone who goes after AT&T to unlock the phones per their promise/assertion to the media, or allow them to face a lawsuit if they don't. I think it would be good for consumers overall, but then again such a small percentage of the US public leaves the US and would need to use a local SIM.Parent
Re:Easy to pay! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
AT&T will NOT unlock iPhones (Score:5, Informative)
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].
Parent
Re:AT&T will NOT unlock iPhones (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Easy to pay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Easy to pay! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a simple philosophy, it's a stupid philosophy. The better, more logical way to move is not to. If Apple were forced to deal with abysmal sales, then they'd likely respond with the product the way you want it. The message you send to Apple is "Yeah, I hate your tactics, but I'm going to give you money anyways." That's hardly going to fill them with fear.
Parent
Re:Easy to pay! (Score:4, Insightful)
ATTENTION! Slashdot User #136707, you have violated the terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by circumventing the copy protection of your CD for the purposes of transferring a RIAA-copyrighted song to a cell phone. Please remain where you are. The RIAA Security Services will be arriving presently to find you guilty of the most heinous crime in America; interfering with profits. As a convicted enemy of the state, you have the option of the suicide booth. Please let your RIAA Security Services officers know if you wish to use this option. Before you decide, remember that any songs at your funeral service must be from original, unripped media, or we will be forced to vaporize your family (including your little dog, too).
Parent
Re:Easy to pay! (Score:4, Interesting)
All current Sony-Ericsson phones come with the means to very easily set your own ringtones. A lot of them can apply ringtones directly from any of your mp3's on the phone. However...bought my 810i from Rogers. Custom firmware which forces you to buy ringtones from Rogers...along with a ton of other little things like that
Thankfully, it took all of 5 minutes to find and re-flash the Sony firmware and the phone was wide open again.
Back on the direct topic, this antic from Apple pisses me off, but matters naught. It's standard practice for Apple and fully expected...which is one of many reasons why I won't pay the Apple Tax. If Rogers actually tried to stop me from unlocking features that that I should have access to anyways, I'd refuse to buy products from them as well. Thankfully they're not quite that stupid...er, let me rephrase that: Thankfully Rogers is TOO stupid to figure out that it's that easy to change things back to the way They Should Be In The First Place
Whatever happened to selling good products that people want? That companies are even attempting these practices...Please people, do the ONLY thing that can change this: Vote with your wallets!!! Stop going: "Hey, why'd they do that? That sucks!!! Ah well, here's my money anyways!" You're really not doing anybody favors.
Parent
Re:Easy to pay! (Score:5, Funny)
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.)
Parent
Arr! (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Arr! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
iPhone... (Score:4, Informative)
Totally missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. [thestreet.com]
To say nothing of other intangibles like wanting to guarantee a seamless user experience with iTunes, activation, the carrier partner, etc.
Parent
No (Score:4, Insightful)
And AT&T doesn't even suffer, they get they subscription fee whether or not the customers use any of their service.
iPhone unlocking only have winners.
Parent
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Even IF AT&T were just paying Apple for iPhones sold and not activated (which they're not, and which would be utterly stupid), Apple would still lose the monthly fee kickback, and AT&T would likely get very irritated at paying Apple for iPhones not activated on AT&T.
Your statement about AT&T not suffering in that scenario is remarkable, because they absolutely do not get the service fee if the phone is unlocked and not used on AT&T's network. Now if you're talking about people who ARE AT&T iPhone customers that simply choose to unlock their iPhone, I'd agree with you - to a point. But I'm talking about iPhones unlocked and never activated or used on AT&T, which is going to be an increasing number of iPhones. That's a much bigger market than you think it is.
Parent
A few issues (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Whose job is it, Jobs? (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Correction. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Unlocking is specifically allowed by DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the customer can figure out how to unlock it, great.
But the vendor is under no obligation to document it or otherwise allow it. It's just that if you figure out how to unlock your handset, it is exempted from DMCA provisions. In no way does this mean that being able to unlock is somehow mandatory or required. Just that it's legal, and only if you can figure it out. Other business profiting from it, services that unlock for you for money, and even free applications that unlock all have ques
asswipes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats what the business world calls... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Independent Developers" are Apple's Best Friends (Score:3, Insightful)
Except when some company becomes egomaniacal and starts trying to grab it all for itself. Even Microsoft did not go so far as to actually try to block "independent developers" outright.
Re:"Independent Developers" are Apple's Best Frien (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that I'm not talking about SIM unlocking, which is a seperate issue.
lip service more than anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn from RIAA woes (Score:3, Insightful)
He's Talking to AT&T (Score:5, Insightful)
We take off and nuke them from orbit... (Score:5, Funny)
Will I be the first.....? (Score:4, Informative)
I know which way I will go and Jobs can stick his iTunes et al. Free your phone!! What more is there to say
The good news (Score:3)
At the UK iPhone launch Steve basically reiterated this stance: [appleinsider.com]
I unlocked my Palm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, wait - it's not locked in the first place. It does everything the iPhone does, except calls, and cost $300 less. Actually, it does more - I can run whatever code I please, and even write my own programs on the Palm. iPhone owners share the dubious distinction of owning a computer they aren't legally allowed to program.
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.
The very thing which makes the computer such an enabling device is that it can be reprogrammed to perform almost any task. Unlike the single function devices of the past - such as a calculator, which performs at most one function - a computer is a totally open piece of hardware. The task which it can be programmed to do are limited only by the ingenuity and creativity of the programmer/user.
Until now. With the advent of cellphones, especially locked ones, we are seeing a new trend in computers. Rather than expanding the functionality of computers, they seek to limit it, in order to serve the greed of Corporate America. A device which formerly could be repurposed for any task the owner thought fit is now restricted to performing only the functions which make the manufacturer money. Consumer benefit beyond the original purpose of the device is explicitly and legally forbidden.
And here ends the computer revolution. A formerly beautiful piece of machinery, capable of solving almost any problem, is reduced to serving the utilitarian greed of corporations, in effect, an intellectual slave of the willfully ignorant.
How long before the same happens to the PC? When a PC can only be bought in conjunction with an internet service, and users are legally prevented from installing their own software?
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. Because they're paving the way for the increased use of restricted, defective by design, hardware.
Re:I unlocked my Palm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, that's like, totally a secondary feature anyway, I'm certainly not missing it. Who uses the iPhone as a phone?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Parent
Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought Apple was a religion.
But then most religions exist to make money/fleece the err customers.
Re:A Company (Score:4, Insightful)
A more effective way might be to be vocal about it, discuss it among themselves, etc. That is exactly what this article and discussion is.
Parent
Re:Misplaced Optimism (Score:4, Interesting)
In reality, I think the iPhone *is* going to revolutionize the cellphone market. To say otherwise takes some rather close-minded thinking.
Visual voicemail, for example, is a great enhancement to the tired "call in to pick up your saved messages" strategy everyone has been using since day 1. It wouldn't surprise me at all if AT&T starts making use of it on other new phones, and eventually, other carriers offer something similar as well to compete.
It also raises the bar on browser usability. Safari on the iPhone is quite simply the BEST mobile web experience out there on a phone. This is bound to spur on others to improve their built-in browsers too.
It's certainly an easier set-up experience than any carrier has ever given people before! Just buy a phone, take it home and let it sit around as long as you like. When you're ready to activate service, port an existing number over, etc. - you just click the options inside iTunes and do it yourself. No pushy salesperson to wait in line to speak with. No big "credit check" paperwork to fill out first and turn in to said pushy salesperson. No hassles with being "upsold" on accessories for your phone you didn't really want.
Apple's "lock-in" with AT&T reminds me a lot of their buddying-up to the recording industry in order to get the iTunes music store launched. Sometimes, you're just shooting for something that's too big to accomplish completely on your own. (Apple was in no position to sign up hundreds of thousands of good artists on their own record label, just so they could then put that content THEY owned onto an online music store.) By the same token, they were in no position to build out their OWN cellular infrastructure, just to launch their new phone. So you have to dig into all the "red tape" and politics of joining an established partner - and hope you can create change one little piece at a time.
Parent