Hacked iPhones Confirmed As Bricking With Latest Update 430
mhollis writes "Field experience has confirmed that if you have a hacked iPhone, it will become an iBrick if you use Software Update to install the latest update on your iPhone. The BBC reports: '[Apple's] warning has now proved correct as many owners are reporting their phones no longer work following installation of the update. Apple requires iPhone owners to take out a lengthy contract with AT&T in the United States but there are a number of programs on the net that unlock the device for use with other networks.' The only 'solution' is to unhack your iPhone."
iPhone (Score:5, Funny)
Re:iPhone (Score:5, Informative)
Re:iPhone (Score:5, Informative)
HACK vs. UNLOCK (Score:2)
An Unlock involves changing information on phones that would not be overwritten by a software update. This is more likely to be capable of bricking a phone since there is information involved that would persist across a software update.
Another misleading sensationalist headline?
Re:HACK vs. UNLOCK (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion that is "malicious prosecution" of the contract terms. Because the phone still physically works it is obvious that the phone COULD be fixed, Apple is refusing. Also, the update does not stop if it will fail.. To use a car analogy, this would be like having an unwarranted mod, nox, stereo equipment on your ride. When you take the car in for a routine oil change they say you're out of warranty.. and cut the offending parts off your car with a chainsaw rendering it undriveable.. when you drove it into the shop just fine. Then telling you that it's "your problem" it's not under warranty.
Apple is clearly self destructing at an alarming rate. Products with half-implemented features, then locked down to ridiculous levels (with out any features) releasing new versions without looking after current customers (I had the 20G photo they stopped updating after 3 months when 30GB video came out... very poor service after the purchase) The iPhone and Touch seem to be the top though. The pricing, and service locks, lack of development platform even after it was cracked... the $200 price drop at 60 days, dud screens on Touch, now disabling the devices. Somebody is getting high off those fumes from the freshly printed money they're raking in. Not to mention they sacrificed their core OS Leopard to make this "innovation" happen? I like Tiger better than Win XP but Leopard is way late... should have been out in the spring and it's holding up development for the core group of Apple fanbois that just want to do cool stuff.
Re:HACK vs. UNLOCK (Score:5, Insightful)
As to your antique iPod - the only updates are going to be bugfixes. Actually, MOST firmware updates are bugfixes. No updates = no bugs to fix, plus they (and neither do most companies) owe their customers anything to increase the value of OLD products when they could release new instead.
Re:HACK vs. UNLOCK (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, you're right, that would be dumb.
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.
That is something quite different than returning the car unchanged, because preliminary checking showed an incompatibility with the requested maintanance.
Funny : when I only dare to shorthen an URL and thereby retrieve a webpage that was not intended for my eyes I can get send to jail for hacking, but when some company intentionally subverts or disables software running on anything I own its allways rightfully. Did I say "funny" ? I actually ment "strange"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't bought one, but I would be curious to know whether you can get AT&T to unlock your iPhone 'legally'?
Re:Apple hates freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, no, you hack your phone, and a re-install of the upgraded OS reverts it to an un-hacked state. Nothing surprising, evil, or permission-ish about it.
Apple doesn't care if you want to play Tetris on your iPhone. They _do_ have to pretend to care that you want to go with a carrier other than who they have a contract with (AT&T). So if you did something to change who you go through as a carrier, and since Apple didn't write the hack, they don't promise how it'll act going forward.
What else could they do? They have to keep their business partners happy for legal reasons, and how in the world could they support a third-party hack they didn't write? I don't think it's reasonable to think that they should have to do a full regression testing of every version of every unlocking hack out there. In fact, I'd prefer they don't. I'd rather they spend their time working on features for the mainstream, and let those who unlock their phone do so with the understanding that they unlock hack may not work after you upgrade the software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, you drank the Kool-Aid. It seems AT&T pays Apple for each subscriber on a monthly basis, how much and what for are in dispute. In your twisted representation, Apple would love nothing more to allow you to go elsewhere but for some other reason, AT&T would cry. Based on my reading, I see that Apple wants the single vendor relationship for its own benefit. The reality is A
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the iPhone... The early adopters got burned with the price drop. And now the people who hacked their phones can't do what they want to do with their p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The worst is when people fucking defend apple no matter what. They go and sleep with the worst service provider in the country,
I get 4 bars of signal with AT&T, in my _basement_. Verizon, at my house, I was lucky to get a call that wouldn't drop in a few minutes.
they completely lockdown the device with no hope for the third party softwares on the brick,
Really? Then AppTap installer doesn't exist? I don't have dozens of third-party apps installed on my iPhone? Oh, do tell, AC, how is it I could have hallucinated all of this? Could it be that you're, you know, either lying or ignorant? Either way, you're wrong.
Personally, I am glad I have not bought any apple device.
Fair enough. Apparently your semi-literate rant is fueled with both ignorance and hatred - a co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny when you swap a few words around, isn't it? Kinda puts things in perspective.
When I buy a phone, I ought to be able to put it on any carrier I choose. When I buy a car, I don
Re:Apple hates freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't have a duty to make sure its software is compatible with every other piece of software that could conceivably be run on the iPhone. If you want to use Apple software then use Apple software. If you want to use other software then use other software. But there's no way to get the best of both worlds -- to modify the OS and then expect Apple to support it.
Re:Apple hates freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me make this clear: If you don't agree with the T&C's for the iPhone, then don't purchase one
It is that simple. Don't like it. Vote with your $$ !!
Why is this so difficult for some people? Are some people born to rage against a machine that they have a choice to not pay money to?
Terms and Conditions of PURCHASE? (Score:3)
That being said, you can't expect software updates to suit your needs if your needs are not in alignment with the plans of the device you bought. If I was planning on using my iPhone as a copy machine I can't very well hold it against Apple for not
Because businesses behave similarly (Score:3, Insightful)
When companies first began drug-testing employees, a radically unpopular proposal, the public was assured this was only for "sensitive" positions like public safety workers. "You don't like it, work for somebody else," was the reply. "Public safety" was
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Idiot.
Non-hacked too. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
in Wikipedia terms... (Score:2)
oblig xkcd (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Me - well, I guess it sucks if you've paid a lot of money, and now you're surprised or something. "Real owner of proprietary system in taking advantage of rights SHOCK!!" It's like people acting surprised that Microsoft installed a stealth update that's wrecked a few systems, even when they turned off automatic updates. Perhaps a few more people will now understand why closed proprietary is intrinsically evil,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With a proprietary vendor you can take it back for repairs or replacement. How exactly will the "l33t dudes" in #linux on IRC help you in your time of n
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This may come as a shock but generally speaking, phones which run Linux are actually manufactured by, well, manufacturers. They're not assembled from dumpster dived components by bearded hippies and then sold to unsuspecting consumers. I believe that some of them even come with warranties!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They weren't even able to turn MacOS into a modern pre-emptive multitasking OS. They ended up having to buy in a third party OS from NeXT, after spending many millions in failed attempts.
One of the most difficult things to engineer into a portable device is a robust battery compartment that can use commercial off-the-shelf _standard_ ba
Re:Non-hacked too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's not like that at all. The imminent arrival of the iPhone update was well-publicized, the possible negative consequences (for those who actively chose to circumvent the warranted use of the device) were well-publicized, and the update procedure itself includes a warning and the option not to install the update.
"Perhaps a few more people will now understand why closed proprietary is intrinsically evil, regardless of whether it's actually convenient for you right now or not."
I don't see anything in this story to support your questionable definition of evil. Perhaps a few more people will now understand why heeding warnings (as in waiting to update later or not updating at all -- or even, God forbid, purchasing a device that does what you want it to instead of hoping to make it something it isn't and getting enraged when your experiment hits a bump in the road) is a good idea.
I read that, too... in the linked article (Score:3, Informative)
I've read that it's also happening to non-hacked phones too.
Yes, that was covered in the linked article. From TFA:
1) There are also reports of the update causing issues with unaltered iPhones.
2) Some owners are reporting on technology blogs and Apple's own forums that the update is deleting contacts information, as well as photos and music, on iPhones that have not been modified in any way.
Re:Non-hacked too. (Score:5, Informative)
I have read isolated reports of people who have hacked/not unlocked phones being bricked and even nonhacked phones. In my reading it seems most of these folks had some sort of SIM issue prior to the update, e.g. replacing the SIM with a nonoriginal for some reason or another.
The unofficial apple weblog [tuaw.com] is reporting that despite warnings posted all over the apple store genius bar employees have been quietly swapping out bricked phones.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not permanant then? (Score:3, Informative)
It reminds me very much of the hacks that went on with the PSP a while back, whereby you could "brick" your shiny new console if you didn't know what you were doing with firmware updates. That one was finally solves by a hack involving accessing the service mode via a modified battery of all things!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I hate AT&T, Apple chose to partner with them to distribute and provide cellular service for the iPhone. Given all the nefarious and legally questionable stuff AT&T has done over the years, are we really that surprised that they/Apple are taking active measure to prevent people from taking their iPhone to other providers?
I like a lot of Apple's products, but won't buy an iPhone until they are available through other providers. ATT& is pure, unadulterated evil.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not to say that SBC didn't do evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ATT& is pure, unadulterated evil.
AT&T doesn't exist anymore, except in name only. They were purchased by SBC about six(?) months ago. SBC then changed their name to AT&T.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not quite that simple.. AT&T Wireless was bought by Cingular which then renamed to AT&T.. and then.. Well, let Stephen Colbert explain it [google.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AT&T: Same familiar name, but now with new, enhanced crappiness from SBC and Cingular.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if the upgrade could have included re-flashing the firmware. Then, Apple could say, "Though unlocking voids the warranty, we want to provide you with the best and seamless iPhone experience--that includes incorporating the new features included with the upgrade. To take ad
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Imagine that (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple isn't actively trying to break modded iPhones. They are doing updates to the unaltered software and it the mods break, too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
A revolution backwards then? You get GSM coverage pretty much anywhere, as long as it's reasonably civilized (i.e. you can see a road or a house). And you get WiFi where? At your home, office, and?
At least not untill it's voip over 3g or something, but then what would be the point?
It's not that I actually like the cell-phone companies, or anything. But when I have to choose be
Re:Imagine that (Score:4)
...and a subpar web browser. Don't get me wrong. I like the Curve a lot, and in the last couple years I've had a Blackberry 7290, 8700 and right now I have an 8800. But the Blackberry web browser doesn't even hold a candle to the iPhone browser. At least give Apple credit where it is due. They have the first decent mobile web browser. You're right about Blackberry's having real keyboards. The "smart" "adaptive" keyboard on the iPhone is a joke if you're used to the tactile feedback from real buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I am somewhat skeptical that it will ever be completed enough to use as an everyday phone. But if it does get to that point, there's a good chance that I'll pick one up, as it does look like its going to be quite nice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From openmoko.org:
Not exactly an alternative if you want to be able to make phone calls, is it?
So now (Score:2, Funny)
Bricks Are For Lobbing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do in Apple boot camp.
Reminiscent of Black Sunday (Score:4, Informative)
My two cents: (Score:2, Informative)
In fact I think I will install this update, I have a small scratch on my iPhone driving me insane, which is not enough to warrent an exchange. A bricked iPhone on the other hand from a corrupt firmware, would...
I will have to explain to my family that they should
Re: (Score:2)
Count yourself lucky. I'm 3 degrees of separation from Steve Guttenberg. Although it's 2 for Lee Majors, so I guess it evens out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hope this helps.
They can tell and you're iScrewed (Score:3, Interesting)
A bricked iPhone can be returned for a full switch... Correct me if I am wrong, but its not like they can tell the phone has been "unlocked", as I have not opened this phone in any way, and as such have not voided any warrenty on the hardware.
If you check the comments here, [macworld.com] you see one particular comment of interest:
You see, they can tell, [digg.com]
Re:They can tell and you're iScrewed (Score:4, Informative)
That is, if this quote is accurate. Anyone with a hacked iPhone in the UK had better ensure it isn't (*#06# is the standard GSM code for display IMEI on most handsets). The other angle, if US law is so very different to ours, is what stops AT&T from putting 004999010640000 on the stolen handset blocklist, thereby denying service to anyone on any network nationwide? The IMEI and IMSI (the phone and SIM serial respectively - IMEI is International Mobile Equipment Identity and IMSI is International Mobile Subscriber Identity) are transmitted to the BTS (cellular Base Transceiver Station) when logging on to the network. There's no way you could hide the IMEI from a network operator.
Gut feeling tells me this report of IMEI cloning is mistaken. If it isn't it's a very crude kludge, not a true simlock release, and is easily defeated without resorting to nasty surprises in firmware.
This is a _GOOD_ thing people! (Score:4, Funny)
Look, Bricking hacked iPhones is the ONLY way to protect the AT&T network from collapsing under the weight of millions of replicating parasites and virii introduced into the carefully nurtured and fragile telecommunication ecosystem.
Also, if Apple does NOT brick the hacked iPhones, it will go bankrupt and we will all be condemned to using old 386 pcs with DOS 5.0 for our computing needs.
Also, the police might follow their example and stop investigation child abuse allegations too. WON'T YOU THINK OF THE ABUSED CHILDREN?
Thank you and death to hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a _GOOD_ thing people! (Score:5, Funny)
Paging Daniel Eran of RoughlyDrafted... (Score:5, Funny)
Also, don't forget the graphs and sound bites.
One stone, two borg... (Score:2)
Doesn't one reference cover both?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple wanted to offer an SDK, they would. If they wanted to offer unlocked phones, they would. They don't, and why should they? Yes, they might make more money with these things, but they might not.
In any event, Apple h
Sell! (Score:2)
Any iBricks on eBay yet? (Score:2)
Explain this to me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*NOT* bricked! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you drop your iPhone in the toilet, or if you microwave it, it will become bricked.
If you simply fudge it up, to the point where it needs to be restored, it is not bricked. Especially if all the other functions on it function.
I know that there are a lot of Apple haters out here, but we don't need to be confusing tech terms.
We all know what a brick is, and what a recoverable system is.
That being said, why the fuck would they apply an update to a hacked and unlocked phone? Hmm, maybe I'll remove my catalyc converter and ask my certified mechanic to keep working on it. You think he'd agree to that? (just to use a car analogy.)
Re:*NOT* bricked! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A brick would be you turn it on, and it flashes the screen in bright colors hysterically all the while playing the modem version of Jimi Hendrix.. well, Ok, it just turns back off usually.
No - there's no real issue there other than something is mysteriously blocking the phone from recognizing the SIM card. I'm sure it'll be fixable somehow.
Why do people update software on a phone? (Score:2, Funny)
They're not brick & Apple had no choice & (Score:2, Interesting)
) Do do this, they had to make a deal with AT&T that included AT&T being the sole US service provider for 2 years. Unless AT&T has no lawyers (ha ha), you can be assured that the contract includes an obligation by Apple to shut down any hackers and keep them from opening the phone. Thus, Apple has not choice and will be forced to continue
Re: (Score:2)
Intent? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does Apple have an obligation to keep your phone working after you've hacked it and violated your warranty? Should t
Re: (Score:2)
...and.. of course... (Score:2)
Not being an iPhowner... (Score:2)
Strange (Score:2)
Installing/executing untrusted code (Score:2)
Typical (Score:2, Interesting)
Over the past several years, Apple has done this with the iPod, iTunes, and now the iPhone. Their best interest is to keep their products under their control. Whenever there is a method to utilize iTunes through wine they include updates in order to interfere with installation and operation. It used to be that you could download previous versions of their binaries from their website that would work in wine but once there was a capable way of installing them through wine they were altered to impair such acti
E-911 concerns (Score:2)
-b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not what's happening. If you actually read reports from people who actually have iPhones and who actually unlocked them and then actually applied the update, you'll find that the "bricking" effect simply means that the SIM is locked again, and turning on the phone yields the activation screen which asks you to purchase cellular service from AT&T. It d
iPhone DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONTRACT! (Score:5, Informative)
I have a co-worker who did exactly this; he was told how to do it by a sales associate at the store he purchased it from. This is not illegal in any way; AT&T lets you do month-to-month on all of their plans in this manner, if you buy the phone first. Given that the iPhone price is not subsidized by the contract in any way, shape or form, why tie yourself into a contract?
When you activate the iPhone in iTunes, enter all 9's for your Social Security number. You'll fail the credit check (duh!) and you will be told you can either go to an AT&T store to talk to a representative or you can go month-to-month.
Given how much whining people have done about being "forced" to sign a with AT&T contract in order to use an iPhone, you would think that month-to-month thing would be being shouted from the rooftops. Are iPhone-bashers just ignoring inconvenient facts?
Re:ownership of personal electronics (Score:5, Insightful)
The firmware is released, and only installed if you allow it to be.
What is the problem here? Anyone who bricked their phone did it to themselves. Or are you just super-anti-corporate man?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"we see that you have altered your iPhone in an unofficial way. Further updates will not be available for your phone. Thank you, have a nice day."
dontcha think?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ownership of personal electronics (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially, you're bitching because you made up your own rules to play with, and Apple is playing a whole different game. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to the technology you own. If Apple sent out an update on Macbooks which forced you to use Appleworks instead of any other office suite, you'd have a right to be angry. You didn't sign up for any contract which said you couldn't or that you had to use Apple's program.
That isn't the case with the iPhone. You entered into a contract knowingly (it was most definitely during the purchase), so what is the point of bitching when you've already broken the rules. Technically, Apple didn't have to tell you, or even hint that a phone would be reverted to an unlocked state. They've been polite; you're the one being a bit unreasonable, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
It is irrelevant that the firmware update was provided by Apple or a third party; Apple will only provide warranty service for their firmware update. You can totally choose not to update the iPhone; no one was forced to install 1.1.1 in any form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The warning was public. The update is manual. Any bad result is entirely the user's fault. This is speaking as someone who's written and installed his own apps - I obviously didn't install the update, because I have more than one brain cell. There's far too many people with a lack of personal responsibility - actions have consequences, and if you can't cope with the consequences, don't do the action.
Simon.
Re:ownership of personal electronics (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not at all a matter of law, nor is this particular case a matter of property ownership.
The law: It's not illegal to sell or license someone a good or service with ridiculous terms attached, so long as the terms themselves are legal and in good faith and the buying party is aware (or can reasonably be made aware) of them. People are actually dumb enough to 'buy' stuff that they don't own or can't control. That's the uneducated market at work for you.
But this isn't even a matter of ownership. It is pretty crystal clear that you OWN your iPhone. You paid money to buy the hardware, you paid money to license the software, and you pay money to use the cellular bandwidth for calls and data.
If the software stops working (IE, Apple releases a new firmware/OS that breaks the core functionality of the original, unmodified device), you might be able to get Apple to fix/replace the phone. If AT&T/SBC decides they're not going to offer you cellular service anymore, they have to let you out of your contract without penalty. If you decide to take your $500 iPhone and hit it with a hammer to see what kind of noise it will make, well that's you're problem.
It's not like if you hack your iPhone, Apple comes to your door and accuses you of destroying their property. You didn't. It's your phone to do with as you please. But the contract you signed probably said something to the effect that they will only support unhacked/unmodified/etc. phones.
Bad car analogy: I own a Jeep. I bought it new and it is under warranty. If I drive it responsibly and follow the scheduled maintenance protocols, it will stay under warranty for another 2 years. I did put a suspension lift on it; and in doing so replaced and/or modified factory suspension components. I have no expectation that Chrysler will honor the factory warranty for any part of the suspension now, mine or theirs. And that's fine. If the engine throws a rod, you bet damn right I expect Chrysler to fix it under warranty, as it is completely unrelated to the suspension. If, while putting the lift on, I bent the frame or broke an axle, how is that Chrysler's fault? If the suspension modifications indeed were incompatible with the Jeep, how is that Chrysler's problem? They sold me a working product under very clear terms. I chose to make my own changes to it.
You definitely own the phone. You license/lease the software and service, respectively.
Absolutely (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but who's property did Apple destroy. It certainly wasn't yours. Apple just let you use their iPhone. They are the ones that 'own' it. *
* (in this case, 'own' should be spelled with a 'p'.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Remember MusicMatch? Just wait. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)