Class-Action Lawsuit Over iPhone Locking? 533
An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe reports that some iPhone users are mad as heck at Apple for bricking up their device in response to non-Apple-authorized software downloads. In a discussion thread on Apple's own iPhone forum, one user posts that he's 'Seeking respondents for possible class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. relating to refusal to service iPhones and related accessories under warranty.' Some who have replied to the post agree that Apple is being unbelievably arrogant and is ripe for legal action. But others say Cupertino is well within its rights to control its own device." Apple seems to have removed the cited post, but it is reproduced as screenshots in the article.
Update: 10/02 02:42 GMT by KD : Reader Cleverboy wrote in to note that the screenshots present in the article are of a posting on Macosrumors, not Apple's forum, and to question the conclusion that Apple removed any posting. The article has been updated since this story went live to make clear that the original posting by user "myndex" was on the Apple forum and was (apparently) removed by Apple; and that the screenshot is of a mirror post myndex made to Macosrumors.
Update: 10/02 02:42 GMT by KD : Reader Cleverboy wrote in to note that the screenshots present in the article are of a posting on Macosrumors, not Apple's forum, and to question the conclusion that Apple removed any posting. The article has been updated since this story went live to make clear that the original posting by user "myndex" was on the Apple forum and was (apparently) removed by Apple; and that the screenshot is of a mirror post myndex made to Macosrumors.
Official Steve Jobs Response (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Official Steve Jobs Response (Score:4, Funny)
The Warranty Suit Will Come (Score:3, Interesting)
Add to that opening a lot of justified vitriol, and I smell another lawsuit coming.
These complaints are stupid (Score:5, Informative)
If you hack the firmware on the phone, it's pretty obvious that you won't be able to get warranty support if you bring in your phone with the hacked firmware on it. So if you have a physical problem, restore the factory firmware! I've hacked my TiVo, and I kept the original hard drive available to swap in, in case I need a repair, for just this reason. Anyone who doesn't understand this sort of thing shouldn't be hacking their electronics.
Also, all of this talk about phones being 'bricked' is absurd. A device is bricked when the device is so confused (typically by a bad firmware update breaking the firmware loader) so that it can't be recovered from. That's not what's happening on the iPhone. What's happening when people install the firmware update on the iPhone is that it it's restored to the original condition, meaning that if you used 'jailbreak' to run third part apps, the apps are gone (technically still there, but you can't run them), and if you 'unlocked' the phone so that it's activated on another carrier instead of AT&T it'll go back to 'waiting for activation'. In either case, the phone is not 'bricked' as it is functioning fine just as you bought it - it just doesn't do what you hacked it to do.
If you really don't like it, feel free to help find a mechanism for 'jailbreaking' or 'unlocking' the iPhone 1.1.1 firmware, so the game of 'cat and mouse' continues.
Re:These complaints are stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If Apple is offering warranty service to their customer, they don't get to pick and choose which ones to offer it to. And the laws regarding consumer protections and warranties provide that certain types of exclusions to get out of providing their contractually obligated warranty service are not lawful, and give consumers certain rights.
They can put into their warranty documents any conditions they like, but it doesn't mean that th
Re:These complaints are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Your initial paragraph about restoring any device going for a warranty repair to its "factory defaults" is sound advice, and will prevent all sorts of problems, if carrying out a reset is possible of course. I had two experiences with this with two separate vendors;
First off, a few years ago I had a laptop develop red vertical lines on screen, these were visible on boot and I assumed were caused by a problem either with the video card or with the screen itself, (I've seen it a few times when there are cracks in the ribbons connecting the screen to the graphics card). I took the machine back to the shop where I bought it (this was within 10 days of purchase) and was told they could not do anything about it as the laptop had been 'modified' i.e. it was no longer running Windows, well that was annoying but simple to solve, the next day when I took the laptop back again, it was running windows and a new laptop was handed over.
The second incident was a little different, I modified the firmware on my IPAQ, I basically changed the bootloader from whatever the HP one is to LAB (Linux As Bootloader) so that I could run Familiar Linux on it, unfortunately about three months after purchasing the IPAQ it stopped booting at all, (there is a stage one bootloader before LAB that you should see regardless), I also couldn't restore the firmware that I had backed up, the IPAQ was simply unresponsive, so I spoke to HP and was told to send it to them, which I did. I received an email stating that the problem was with the device and that they would send a new one out to me, there was no reference to the non-standard firmware, nor any indication that there would be any warranty issues, then sure enough a few days later a nice new IPAQ arrived, and to my surprise it came not with the standard HP bootloader and Windows Mobile, but with my nice LAB bootloader all ready and waiting. Now I don't know if I should thank someone specific at HP for that, or if they simply transfer everything from the broken device to the new one as a matter of course, but either way, it was a pleasant experience.
So would I go and buy another laptop from the first guys I dealt with? No I wouldn't, there is enough competition out there and frankly the custoemr service experience was generally poor, would I buy another IPAQ? Yes I would, in fact I would prefer to buy an IPAQ than any other PDA and that is largely due to the fact that when I hit a problem it was solved, quickly and sensibly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At the risk of angering some of the priests and devout members of ev
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. A bunch of people figure that Apple did something illegal.
2. We should all recognize that Apple is going to do stuff like this, just like MS
3. ???
4. Profit?
Seriously, whether or not 'this is what Apple does' is completely and totally irrelevant to whether the Class Action Lawsuit should go through, in fact you couldn't get more irrelevant if you tried (well I guess you could mention Vista, and a Beowolf cluster of bricked IPhones...but you might still be more relevant)
So, which part is illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) People change their OS in a way not expected by Apple
2) Apple does not take these changes into account when writing update
3) Apple tells people with changes to not install update in case something goes wrong
4) Users install update anyway
5) Update on changed phone leads to unexpected results such as calls no longer working
6) Apple fixes said results, but old hack is not possible anymore
What part is illegal?
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose that would depend on lawyers and experts being able to convince a jury. From my perspective, I can't see how it couldn't be unintentional, or at the least, negligent.
Well, Apple said they did not intentionally remove any functionality from the hacked phones, but it seems quite obvious that they tested the update and figured out that the iPhones' cell phone functionality was broken with the update. The question then is: Is it negligent of Apple to not fix this? Do they need to write software in such a way that it works with third-party apps that change fundamental parts of how the phone works? Where do we draw the line? What does Apple need to support?
Re:So, which part is illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple specifically said they did do no such thing (quoting Schiller: "This has nothing to do with proactively disabling a phone that is unlocked or hacked"). I believe they did try to close the holes that allowed the exploits to exist (as they should, the SIM hack relied on a buffer overflow, so it's clearly Apple's job to fix that bug). I believe they did not do anything to intentionally disable the SIM cards in SIM-unlocked phones. They probably tested the software with a hacked phone, found out that it disabled the SIM card, and then put out a press release telling people with hacked phones to not install the update.
Frankly, I never even expected them to go as far as alerting owners of hacked phones to ignore the update. I thought they would just not test the update with hacked phones at all.
Re:Official Steve Jobs Response (Score:5, Informative)
No, you don't! There is a law, called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org], which says that unless Apple Can prove that the alteration caused the particular problem, it has to honor the warranty. Apple cannot just decide to void the warranty on unrelated components for no reason.
In good Slashdot tradition, here's a car analogy: If you modify the engine in your vehicle and the radio stops working, the maker cannot refuse to replace the radio because of that modification. In contrast, if it were the transmission that broke, and the maker could prove that the transmission broke because it could rot handle the extra torque of the engine created by the modification, then it could legitimately void the warranty of the transmission (but still not the whole car).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The class action law suite should be thrown out, every Apple customer know that this is what Apple does. Apple is no better than MS, in fact, in many areas they are worse then MS.
1: A law suite? As in, a bunch of lawyers working in a group of connected rooms, like in a hotel? Yeah, that's kind of creepy. Better disbar the lot of them. (It's "lawsuit", one word.)
2: This is above and beyond Apple's previous behavior, and even if it weren't it may very well violate interoperability laws. An iPhone isn't a standalone device like an iPod or a PSP -- it's a part of a fairly regulated network, and the FCC has some fairly specific rules as to what they can and can't do on a cell phone
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a matter of surprise that Apple did something li
Mad as heck (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, any blogger who can't use the word 'hell' in their blog and feels obliged to tone it down loses serious respectpoints from me.
Jolyon
Bad move apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember how you lost the OS war to Microsoft? Its because Windows had more apps, and it didn't matter that it sucked.
The iPhone's is a fine phone, but its UI and hardware are well suited for all kinds of other apps that will drive sales way beyond just the smart phone market: games, vertical business apps, voip, home controller, etc. It's not just an mp3 player. If you need to rework the AT&T deal just do it, because the platform play is a much bigger opportunity.
Please just open it up already.
Sincerely,
Apple shareholder
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad move apple (Score:4, Interesting)
And to be honest, acquiring NextStep back when they did was a failure. NextOS and those cubes, as cool as they were, pretty much tanked. It took them a decade to actually start using a derivation of that OS commercially again (the original OS X Server), and a few more years after that before it was truly ready as a desktop/workstation environment.
Re:Bad move apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
o_O
Just about anyone trying to enter the OS business with any real commercial viability has failed, because... well... the deck was kind of stacked, eh? NeXT had some real "holy crap!" technology that they were delivering--and had been delivering for years what other OS'es were promising and NOT delivering
Not bricking unless you choose to install (Score:5, Insightful)
If I completely wiped the OS and then tried to install the firmware upgrade I'd be shocked if it _didn't_ brick. Once I've made the software my own, it becomes my problem to support it. The easiest way would be to just not install new firmware upgrades (or at least wait until there are new unlocks available).
It'd be nice if they had a "bring in your brick" program whereby they re-flashed phones that had been bricked, but I'm not convinced it's a legal requirement.
Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A good design would be to let the software do some "self-healing" if a checksum didn't match so that the phone wasn't bricked. By not allowing for that it is effectively the same thing as saying that "We do brick your phone on purpose if you don't use it as we want.". The problem here is that they don't own the device - the consumer does - and by not allowing the consumer
Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like if Microsoft released a security update to Windows that would corrupt the BIOS if Firefox was installed. If it just happened, it might be chalked up to a mistake, but if Microsoft released a statement saying "If you have Firefox installed, this update will corrupt your BIOS," before releasing the update, then it looks a lot shadier. And, being a security update, it's harder to say "If you don't want the new features just don't update."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install (Score:4, Informative)
You buy an iPhone, you can do what you want with it. Apple might not like it and maybe has T&Cs forbidding it, but for all intents and purposes, if you want to unlock it, you can. This software update is optional, and by now everyone with an unlocked phone knows that if they want to keep it that way they shouldn't install the update. Those who have are a little screwed, but a workaround will be developed shortly, so they'll get their phones back.
If Apple had released the firmware as a 'stealth update' a la MS - uploading it to your iPhone when you got your email, for example - then yes, the cries of "Evil!" would be justified. But they didn't. Don't download it if your phone is unlocked. End of story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not really trying to defend Apple here, but what I've read about iPhone unlocking sounds more analgous to overclocking a chip, rather then trying to run Linux on it.
What warranty? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I absolutely believe people should have the right to hack their products, and they do. I'm a little less sympathetic when they also want to be immunized from the consequences of their missteps. With power comes responsibility, etc.
As far as I know, if your Dell or Sony PC (for example) dies on you and you haven't gone out of your way to use it in any way in which it was not intended for, then the warranty would cover repairing it.
Emphasis mine. Sin
Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to hate Apple, but over the last several years, I've found myself buying more and more Apple gear. Somehow, I've gone through a PowerMac, two MacBooks, several iPods (including ones I bought for my family), and now an iPhone. Apple stuff looks nice, works simply, takes surprising amounts of abuse, and what little support I've needed in the Apple Stores was delivered very efficiently. You don't have to be a fanboy to appreciate that.
Re:Not bricking unless you choose to install (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Denmark Apple has been involved in a very long legal battle over the iBooks which they in the end lost, but as far as I know still don't honor their obligations, customers still have to fight them.
I for one can't fathom why people buy Apple gear, they hardly ever want to honor their warranty if they can get away from it, when you use their stuff you are usually locked in. Battery replacement is nothing you can do yourself and Apple thinks its outside warranty, even if the battery fails within first year.
I for one won't buy an Apple product until they get down from their high horse and treat their customers with respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Your gripe is that Apple made a bad business decision by not opening up the platform. That is valid. What I am tired of seeing is people complaining that Apple won't support their unauthorized hard- software hacks. There is no legal basis that these customers might rely on to compel Apple not to produce firmware updates that will not work with these hacks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And there is the exact issue for Apple. Clearly they want a cut of the profit from anything designed to run on iPhone, i.e. Apple approved third party apps.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
A better car analogy would be: You buy your car, go to a tuning shop for some chip tuning. When you get back to your dealer for the next inspection, he fries the motor electronic because your custom chip does not play well with the dealer's diagnosis instrument.
You can't start blaming the dealer for that, now can you?
Re:Bad move apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but those apps are all part of the smartphone market.
But in any case, it seems to me that Apple is going "way beyond just the smart phone market" in an entirely different fashion that you're advocating.
Apple is pursuing a less-is-more strategy here imho...
Geeks online have flame wars about weather of not the iPhone is a "real smartphone", with the implied presumption that smartphone status is, or ought to be, a goal Apple is trying to achieve. On the contrary, I suspect that Apple is actively trying to avoid having people perceive the iPhone as a smartphone. Smartphones are either toys for geeks or corporate tethers keeping us chained to work; the iPhone is targeted at the mainstream consumer, not a corporate IT department or the individual geeks working in it.
Apple doesn't want to compete in the "smartphone space", it wants to invent the "iPhone space" and grow it by consuming the mainstream featurephone (and, almost coincidentally, smartphone) markets.
I suspect that Apple will eventually allow some form of native apps for the iPhone, just as they eventually added a bunch of random functionality to the iPod (photos, notes, calendar, video, games, stopwatch, etc...). However, it seems to me that they find it essential to their strategy that the iPhone be initially perceived as a simple, easily understandable, and rock solid device (like an iPod that can make calls, rather than like a complicated programmable smartphone).
Personally, as a programmer and potential customer, I was mad as hell when I heard that the iPhone wouldn't let me write my own native apps; I was overflowing with ideas for that gadget the instant Steve started mentioning all of it's sensors in it's introductory keynote.
But if I were speaking as a shareholder, as you claim to be, I would be hesitant to criticize Apple's initial direction for the iPhone here. While their strategy has yet to prove itself in the cell phone space, and replicating the iPod's crushing success in the semi-mature cellphone market is a very tall order indeed, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if "no user apps, less features than an N95, lame" is 2009's version of "no wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Geeks online have flame wars about weather of not the iPhone is a "real smartphone", with the implied presumption that smartphone status is, or ought to be, a goal Apple is trying to achieve. On the contrary, I suspect that Apple is actively trying to avoid having people perceive the iPhone as a smartphone. Smartphones are either toys for geeks or corporate tethers keeping us chained to work; the iPhone is targeted at the mainstream consumer, not a corpo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This has been Apple's Achilles heel since the introduction of the Mac. The old Apple II was a wonderfully open system and was phenomenally successful for it. Macintosh changed that philosophy and they've been repeating the same mistake, and failing for it, ever since. Woz has been openly critical of Apple's closed systems for a long time and rightly so. Apple just doesn't get it anymore. The
Re:Bad move apple (Score:4, Insightful)
If I post a sign on the wall that says "A means a punch in the face, B means free dinner" and ask you "A or B", I would still be in the wrong for punching you in the face for saying A. Just because someone can give you ice to put on that black eye doesn't make it any less wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. but... What's with the Apple/Microsoft comparisons? You think this somehow exposes a hidden hypocrisy or bias among slashdot readers, that they somehow disapprove of the convicted monopolist in favor of the upstart who has achieved some recent market success? Good lord. You know what? We all expect that if Apple continues on this path
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Man, if someone actually asked to get punched in the face and then gets indigent because it actually happened, I just can't feel sorry for that person. In fact, I'd probably laugh.
"Hey, I'll give you two options. You can either be pu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a tip for all you Apple fanboys. Grow up. Real adult's understand a bad deal, and understand that by entering it, they're likely going to get buggered, but at least they walk in with op
Apple's device? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't the phone belong to the person who bought it, not Apple?
It'll be interesting to see what happens here, since it isn't uncommon for companies to refuse warranty for "unauthorized" use.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunatly, I'm not familiar enough with the relevant U.S. Code or the iPhone warranty to make any judgment on how far their reach goes. I'd imagine this would be an interesting read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the argument doesn't apply to the software unlocks, but the hardware ones meet your analogy.
"Unauthorized use" might be things like taking your sports care racing on dirt roads.
Slashdot hivemind re: Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were any other vendor Slashdot would be in 100% agreement that Apple doesn't 'own' the product once it is bought, in fact they would be venting almost as much fury at
Re: (Score:2)
Explaining jokes.... (Score:3, Informative)
But seriously, just watch how His Steveness reacts to a little market dominance. Macs are a footnote in the PC world so being overtly Evil would just be suicide, thus Macs aren't infused with much Evil. But look at the iPod and now iPhone game, where Apple feels itself to be dominant. All of teh new iPods are infested with DRM from the bootloader on, no RockBox or iPod Linux on any of the newer hardware. The iPhon
Suing for the wrong things (Score:3, Insightful)
As I see it, this is suing for the wrong thing. You bought a device, did two unauthorized modifications (used a different SIM and hacked the software), then are mad that a software update for an unmodified device caused you problems. This is your fault. You should have seen this coming a mile away, whether intentional on Apple's part or not.
"I replaced the tires on my Ford Escort with big tracks, and when I installed the free hubcaps they sent me it caused the tracks to lock up and destroy themselves. Damn
Collateral Damage Reported. Is your phone working? (Score:2)
It'll be interesting to see what happens here, since it isn't uncommon for companies to refuse warranty for "unauthorized" use.
How about warranty for stuff Apple broke trying to lock down other people's iPhones [slashdot.org]? iPhone is a beautiful device, crippled by non free software and ATT. One is bad enough but the combination is unworkable and unbearable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before Gates, software was not a "product." It was something that helped to make hardware useful. People created it, shared it, ported it and everything that OSS is attempting to recapture. The "product" was the hardware. And sure, hardware makers paid software writers to make stuff for their hardware, but the idea of selling the software to the USER as a product I blame on Bill Gates and the problems that come from that continue o
Re:Apple's device? (Score:4, Informative)
QTopia Greenphone (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(I'll get modded as troll for this, of course).
the end of FOSS on phones (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, the QTopia Greenphone is GPL alright. Unlike Linux and Gnome, Troll Tech wants commercial developers to pay them big bucks for the privilege of developing software for their platform. Even the FSF doesn't go that far. It's a marketing gimmick to help Troll Tech establish their platform on phones--a platform that deliberately excludes major other open source toolkits.
and encourages user development and contributions to its features.
Well, that's debatable. At QTopia prices, it very much discourages commercial development for the platform. Furthermore, although QTopia is released under the GPL, nobody other than Troll Tech can actually realistically develop or enhance it--if anybody tried to ship their own version of QTopia, none of the commercial QTopia apps could run on it.
And it runs Linux. If THAT isn't a better deal than an iPhone, I dunno what is.
Just about anything else: if Troll Tech manages to establish their platform as the default "open source" phone platform, open source on mobile devices would be effectively dead because it would be fully controlled by Troll Tech. You can contribute to QTopia only if Troll Tech lets you, and only if you effectively donate your free labor to them.
So, for now, I'll stick with my Palm: Palm has open source development tools, there is plenty of open source software, and the company doesn't dictate what license I can ship my software under.
(Another reason not to use QTopia is that it sucks from a user interface point of view, but that's a separate debate.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Users (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The REAL problem here is AT&T, plain and simple.
Everybody whining about the iPhone being locked to them as the only carrier (and Apple's subsequent attempts to enforce this) were pretty much requirements for Apple to successfully launch this phone in the first place. If they had an unlimited budget, I'm sure Apple would have just started their own cellular carrier or bought one out, and then built a phone to work with it with all the features pe
Re: (Score:2)
Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" states that one of the exempted classes of copyrighted works is "Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless tel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't say they can't make it as difficult as they want on you to mod it in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For those of us who were already Cingular customers, it wasn't that big a deal to continue being "locked" to a single carrier. I've been a Sprint customer, and am now a Cingular/AT&T customer (better coverage in the area I just moved to on Cingular than Sprint). I've never received stellar customer service from either of them, but they've gotten the job done.
Yes, I would've liked to bring my iPhone with me, and be able to u
Apple=RIAA (Score:2, Funny)
Steve brought this on himself... (Score:5, Insightful)
I quite clearly remember Jobs standing on stage at Moscone declaring proudly that the iPhone ran OS X. Everyone oohhed and ahhhed as they began to realize what this meant: the iPhone was a full-fledged miniature PC powered by their fave OS. Think of the killer apps that could be written for this thing, etcetera. Now that reality is setting in, one has to wonder what Steve's thinking. What use is a PC you can't write apps for?
Re:Steve brought this on himself... (Score:5, Insightful)
I own an unlocked iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Same basic concept as the PSP hacks a while back, people want to do specific things with the hardware that they buy. If that functionality is unavailable, the masses will create it for themselves. The fact that they cannot get it right, and end up bricking their phones is both their own fault for doing something they do not fully understand, and Apples's fault for not providing a p
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the phone is actually "unlocked" (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the unlock method will change over the next few months. In the US, Apple uses AT&T, in Germany, they use T-Mobile, ETC... When the hacking groups begin to compare the differences between the various regional iPhones, they'll find that there is a better way to unlock. I doubt future firmware updates will convert German iPhones to AT&T. So by examine the difference, we should get closer to having a real unlock and hopefully we'll be able to avoid issues with firmware updates as a result.
Re: (Score:3)
When I entered into the contract that Apple alleges I entered, this was not made clear. My assumption was that it could be unlocked after 90 days by my carrier, whereby I would have the freedom to do with it as I needed. I was willing to pay a three month premium when I travel, but not a "life of phone" premium.
Apple is wrong on this, and they are going to get themselve
As much as I like what Apple does.... (Score:3, Informative)
Do we own the iPhone or lease it? (Score:4, Informative)
If you were to lease the thing then I can side with Apple. But if they sold it then I dont get it
Aren't they violating the DMCA or whatever?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yours. You modify your hardware, fine. You install Apple's update that's not made for your modifications, fine. But don't go expecting Apple to cover the problems you caused to your hardware. See how that works? If on the other hand you exercise some restraint in what you do to your iPhone, Apple will back you up if problems occur.
iBrick Can Be iReversed (Score:5, Informative)
Parent comment is WRONG (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the baseband cannot be backdated to previous versions imply that apple intentionally removed the previously existing method for updating the baseband. This intent Jennifer Bowcock's statement that people need to buy a whole new iPhone seems pretty damn evil to me.
Is Re-Locking Unexpected? (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, should Apple be expected to work around hacks at all?
I see the choice as either Apple updates the iPhones regardless of any hacks (over-writing them, re-locking iPhones) or Apple refuses to update hacked iPhones. Clearly Apple are taking the former path, and I agree with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The few cases of actual bricking should be taken straight to Apple for warranty service, unless they were physically hacked in which case it's just too bad.
More than enough blame on both sides (Score:4, Insightful)
Both sides have shown less than stellar judgment and both sides will lose. I suspect that the iPhone plaintiffs will lose their case and Apple will lose a chunk of market-share opportunity.
Fixing vulnerabilities (Score:5, Interesting)
Who owns your I phone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who owns your I phone? (Score:4, Insightful)
> >"But others say Cupertino is well within its rights to control its own device."
>"and was thinking that this must have been written by a younger person. Some one my age would believe that if I bought something, it belonged to me. I bought it, I paid for it, it is mine to do with what I want."
Naw, sounds more like a Windows user - they're trained to believe that Windows says "My Computer" because Bill Gates thinks he owns it.
Apple simply doesn't have the right to brick a phone - not only is it against consumer law in many areas, but its also against the PATRIOT ACT, which increased penalties under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (iPhones are both communications devices and networked computing devices). Finally, Apple as terrorists ...
Will other companies follow suit? (Score:2, Interesting)
As always (Score:2, Informative)
Hey hackers, stop whining (Score:4, Insightful)
I can hack my (original) xbox or Wii. I just can't connect to their online services or download any updates because, surprise, the updates may brick my consoles. It sucks, since there's no proof that a hacked console is being used for illegal purposes, but that's the way it is. And I can't attempt to get the consoles serviced, because I've voided their warranty. The same policy applies to my Ford Ranger - If I change the chip in the onboard computer, I've voided my warranty.
Where it's a little different in this case is that the iPhone downloads its updates automatically. There's no real benefit to using an iPhone as just an iPod, now that the iPod touch is out. But it's not like you don't have a choice in what phone you buy. There are plenty of other phones on plenty of other carriers. You chose to buy an iPhone, and you chose to hack it to run on another network, knowing full well that it was not only unsupported by Apple, but would void your warranty and possibly brick your phone. If you didn't know that, you shouldn't have been involved in hacking your iPhone in the first place.
For better or worse, the iPhone is a closed system. It's meant to run one OS on one carrier. Am I going to sue Chevrolet because my Corvette got stuck on a mountain bike trail? Of course not. I used the car in a manner not supported (or warrented) by the manufacturer, and now I pay the price.
All this talk of class action lawsuits and people whining about the supposed Apple 'monopoly' of the iPod and iPhone just makes me mad. Nobody's forcing you to buy the shiny, pretty Apple gadget. Go buy a Zen. Or a Treo. Or a Dell. Stop trying to blame the big bad corporation for telling you how to use its product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight - People are hacking their iPhones, then agreeing to install an update, and then complaining that it doesn't work? If you don't install the update does the phone keep working?
To keep my car analogy going: "Hey Chevy, I installed that stock oil filter in my Corvette and it blew up!" "I know I retrofitted it with a Ford motor first, but it's still your fault!"
I'm all for hacking - I still have my modded PS1 and am running XBMC on my
I have mixed feelings about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Control its own device? So Apple takes your money but the phone is still theirs? Sorry but that's just plain wrong.
You give Apple money.
They give you a phone.
You lose ownership of the money -- it now belongs to Apple.
Apple loses ownership of the phone -- it now belongs to you.
That's the fundamental basis of all commerce.
On the other hand, anyone stupid enough to pay hundreds of dollars for an over-priced over-hyped phone with ridiculous limitations deserves to get screwed. So I guess it isn't so bad after all.
Intent To Brick! (Score:3, Insightful)
But it doesn't matter. This is too fine a technical detail to dally over and Apple trying to use it in defense will just glaze over the eyes of judges or jury that to whom this is presented. The rule of law is that of what seems reasonable to an adult, and that people who pay hundreds of dollars for a non-subsidized device can have it bricked by the manufacturer carrying on as if they still own the phone is plainly not reasonable.
Instead, I think this will become a turning point for the carrier and handset industry. Around the iPhone, a critical mass has gathered that is passionate about the device, which no other device has enjoyed in this space until now (most handsets sales are small number or subsidized, cheap commodity phones no one can get excited about). Many of these people are the obnoxious, uppity Mac crowd stereotype who are convinced they are right regardless of the facts, but in this case their conviction may be a triumph for everyone. Once precedent swings against the ridiculous situation where carriers and handset manufacturers believe that they can control and restrict a device they have sold in good faith, it will crumble and just perhaps we will see a shift in power in the mobile space from carrier/manufacturer to consumer. Therefore, I say to iPhone owners: Sue, and sue hard. Punitive damages. Criminal RICO prosecution. An all out attack will keep it in the press and that may be more powerful than the suits themselves.
Apple is completely wrong on this and here is why (Score:5, Insightful)
But now Apple is not some little computer company struggling as a small fish in a pond of predators. Apple isn't even a computer company anymore. They are a consumer electronics company, and they are dangerously close to repeating Sony's mistake of letting fear of the content producers influence the design of their consumer electronics. That's a recipe for failure. Hardware sales directly benefit from the availability of content, and if you cut the flow of content, you strangle your hardware sales. No one would buy a MacBook or iMac no matter how great it was if it was as closed as the iPhone has become.
The reason Apple has to take such a hard line on the iPhone is because, for perhaps the first time, Apple is at the mercy of a "content" provider: Cingular/AT&T (the content in this case is access to the cellular spectrum). I would bet any amount of money that somewhere in the contract between Apple and AT&T is the stipulation that if a Voice-Over-IP application appears on the iPhone platform, Apple will forfeit a big chunk of change. That's why there's no Flash (microphone interaction has been possible with Flash for a while now). That's why there's no native development. It's not about protecting the network from faulty a application that might screw up the mission critical cellular network. Cell phones don't have that power, otherwise you could make the same attack with the cellular PCMCIA cards and adapters that the cell phone providers already sell. Until Apple can negotiate a price they are willing to pay or give up to allow full development, knowing full well that job number one for everyone will be a VoIP app that eliminates the need to even keep Cingular around for Pay-As-You-Go, Apple is going to keep the phone locked down tight.
So I'm understand Apple. I don't expect to ever see native iPhone development as long as AT&T is in the picture. But Apple has gone too far with the warrantee cancellations. It's against the law, at least in California. A manufacturer can't void a warrantee based on a 3rd-party modification unless you prove that it was the 3rd-party modification that caused the problem. Toyota can't tell you that your warantee on your new car is void because you had Audio Discounters install a stereo unless they prove Audio Discounters cut the main system bus or something. Apple is hiding behind the fact that as a software company, they are more familiar with licensing which seems to dictate that Apple can declare the moon made of cheese and anyone who clicks "I Agree" has to live with that. But courts don't let people waive rights that are guarantee regardless of what a contract says, and so I suspect that if this case goes to court, Apple will lose. For the courts to rule otherwise would shut down nearly every hardware aftermarket industry overnight.
And, Apple would also have to prove that hardware can be, in fact, damaged by just software. That's a very scary thing to admit about a product you engineered. If it were truly possible for software to damage the iPhone hardware in a way that it would be unreasonable for Apple to be require to fix it, that's a timebomb waiting to happen. Let's say there is an exploit in Safari (there are). Let's say someone writes some cod
Their rights VS my rights (Score:3)
And I'm well within my rights to continue to not buy one.
Proud member of the "I just wanna make a call" crowd.
Super Chicken quote (Score:3, Informative)
You hack a device when they told you not to then you cry foul when they wipe out your hack and leave you without your phone? Ever read the service contract? On what basis are you planning to sue, "gee I didn't think they were serious Judge?" Under what legal president does that fall? Trying to hack a $500 phone comes with a fair amount of risk. If you didn't like the deal don't buy the phone. Simple enough. If you did and you hacked it and now you have a high tech paperweight you've got nothing to complain about other than your own stupidity.
Take responsibility for your actions (Score:3, Interesting)
How much clearer could Apple have been? They put out a press release days before releasing the software, warning people that the firmware update could potentially damage unlocked iPhones. Then, when you downloaded the firmware update it threw up a warning screen saying that hacked/unlocked phones could be damaged by the firmware update. If that didn't scream "don't install me on a hacked phone" what would have?
Now people are looking to sue because they ignored these warnings and installed the firmware update anyway. Please grow up and take responsibility for your actions. You hacked the phone. Don't expect updates or further support, and, most of all--HEED THE VENDOR'S WARNINGS!
These potential lawsuits will go nowhere.
Only some hacked phones bricked (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
To take your actual point though - the physical iPhone is indeed the property of the purchaser. The warranty may have been voided by the hack though, and further support becomes the responsibility of the hacker/owner. There were warnings all over the place about this update, but still some people chose to install it on their hacked iPhones.
The update made an assumption that the system software was as shipped. How can any software u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It does not require Apple to do anything to support unlocking.
From day one, Apple told everyone it would never have an sdk. From day one Apple announced it would be exclusive to AT&T in the states. Neither exceptions are unusual in phones sold in the us. In spite of apple singing to the rafters that there would be no sdk and exclusive to AT&T, people bought it.
There are many phone models exclusive to a carrier. Why is Apple the bad gu