Upcoming Firmware Will Brick Unlocked iPhones 605
iCry writes "It was rumored last week, and Apple has now confirmed it: 'Apple said today that a firmware update to the iPhone due to be released later this week "will likely result" in SIM-unlocked iPhones turning into very expensive bricks... So what are users of SIM-unlocked iPhones to do? Not run the latest software update, that's for sure. Users can instead pray to the hacking deities — the famed iPhone Dev Team that released the free software unlock, and iPhoneSIMfree, which released a commercial software unlock — to write applications that will undo the unlocks, as it were, if those users want to run the latest iPhone software.'"
Is that even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now my question is, what exactly do they need to update that would cause such brickage.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, I'm the GPP.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If morality leaves the equation when a billion dollar corporation is on the other end, what makes you think fairness stayed? As far as I know, nothing requires Apple to sell you an iPhone at all. What isn't fair, is voiding your warranty then crying foul when it breaks.
I don't agree with bricking unlocked iphones, but you were warned.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean god forbid that someone would buy something and then not expect the vendor to have complete and utter control over it! What is this world coming to?!?!
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet those MICROSOFT FAT CATS won't let me return it--can you believe that??
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sort of. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sort of. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple however is just protecting AT&T's revenue stream with their bricking, which goes against the Slashdot mantra of "Your failed business plan is not my problem".
Re:Sort of. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like you buy a Toyota that's designed to only run on Toyota fuel. You modify it to run on any petrol (since Toyota fuel is just petrol with colouring in it). MS's approach with the XBox is to ban you from filling your modded car up at Toyota petrol stations. Apple's approach is to pour sugar in your petrol tank.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Informative)
From the iPhone warranty: [apple.com] In other words, swim at your own risk, but don't bitch to us if you get eaten by an alligator; you were told to stay out of the water.
The other option is to simply forgo the update, or re-lock it.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, and the fact that they put the alligators in the water to intentionally eat swimmers doesn't take away their moral high ground one bit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That reasoning would render inert almost every product liability lawsuit in history, wouldn't it? The only ones I can think of which would survive your standard would be ones where manufacturers continued peddling their products even though they knew normal use would cause problems (e.g. cigarettes).
Liability has to ex
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that when a company like Microsoft or Oracle does some sort of lock-in or stunt like this, they're "so evil" and it's just such a demonstration of how evil they are, but when Apple does it they're just "doing what a business has to do"?
You are absolutely correct in your point. Apple is no way obligated to "support" hacked iPhones. However, how does it BENEFIT them to go after the phones and turn them into bricks? And you can just about bet with safe odds that this WAS deliberate. They are going after these hacked iPhones as if they were a threat to the company and their profits, and that, to me, is just... well, asshole.
I agree that Apple's not obligated to supply full support for hacked iPhones. I agree with that 100%. And if this new bricking was *caused* by a REAL feature-upgrade that Apple was trying to do, and it *happened* to collide with the hacks... then that's fine and dandy and sucks for everyone. However, I dont think anyone believes that's what is actually happening here. Apple (like Sony), has shown again and again that they are SERIOUSLY against homebrewing of any sort, and will implement over and over again whatever features they can to stymie those efforts. Everyone can readily admit that Sony is a bunch of assholes over their handling of the PSP. Why is it just SO hard for people to admit it with Apple? As I said, maybe this doesnt apply to you. Maybe you're always even-handed and would have come out and supported Microsoft or Sony or any of those other companies if they were doing this exact same stunt. However, if you would not have, perhaps you should take a look at yourself and consider "You might be a fanboy".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cell phone manufacturers know about the DMCA exemption.
Apple is a cell phone manufacturer.
Apple knows about the exemption.
Apple is locked into legally obliging what the DMCA exemption allows.
Apple finds other ways to by pass the exemption.
Is this legal?
Apple's attempts must be such that they don't violate our right to unlock the cell phone.
If they do they will be sued and they'll receive the requisite DMCA cease and decist letters.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair enough. However, the warranty does not state "the manufacturer doesn't support unauthorized hacks and will deliberately try to destroy your device if you use them". In fact, they're not even legally ALLOWED to pull that sort of thing. Once you buy an iPhone, it's yours, and Apple certainly doesnt have the right to come to your home and smash it with a sledgehammer if they dont like how you're using it. It seems that this is all that they're doing, merely in software form.
The big question over whether this is right or wrong is really "Was it honestly an accident?" And... given Apple's previous stances and history with lock-in and proprietarianism (that's a hell of a made-up word), I dont think any of us are buying that this was just completely accidental. Especially with the convenient timing. Much more likely, this is just Apple's prompt response for trying to kill (legal!) modders off ASAP.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called "special pleading", and it's been the standard defense of Apple from day 1. Apple is the company that invented the Look and Feel lawsuit. This is the company that sued Microsoft over MS Media player changing file associations
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I have a problem with a company actively preventing you from doing something protected by law (unlocking a phone is protected under the DMCA).
Who's preventing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is this so hard for the
This is like whining that Microsoft doesn't support people running Window-Blinds or some other hack.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, it's completely legal to unlock your phone under the DCMA to use on other carriers. It's one of the few exceptions allowed to 'consumers'. Now I don't have an Iphone so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't really care if some random guy's phone gets bricked or not. Do I think it's a dumb move? Yes. Do I think apple is completely justified in protecting it's revenue stream? Yes. You can bet the AT&T and Apple's legal department are very carefully looking at just how much effort Apple puts into ensuring their two year exclusivity agreement remains exclusive. You can also bet the other carriers around the world with whom Apple has a contract are looking at the results of Apple's efforts to squash cell phone freedom. These are completely different issues that you shouldn't confuse. I just wanted to let you know that you are completely wrong about contractural obligations. Do you think those guys from "Does It Blend" are liable to AT&T for blending their Ipod without purchasing a cell phone contract?
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you get the point. If you signed up with AT&T and you took the two year contract then you are obligated to that unless you find a way around it such as paying penalties. If you don't get out from under it you are still paying AT&T for those two years. You just aren't using the minutes, so that's free money to AT&T.
The point is that you are committed to AT&T for the effective life of the phone, not just two years. That's one of the reasons why there's an exemption to the DMCA. Most of you must realize the iphone will be in use much longer that 2 years.
What some of you may not understand about the iphone is that you can't use the it even as an ipod until you unlock it and you can only unlock it through AT&T (or some hack). So that means you loose full use of the device, not just the phone capabilities.
Apple did everything to screw the consumer on this one knowing the DMCA was covering our asses. They looked very seriously at this at judged how they would handle those attempting to protect their rights with the DMCA. It is obviously carefully calculated, since any company worth anything knows that the consumer has the right to unlock their cell phone.
You have the legal right to issue DMCA cease and decist letters and a legal right to sue, even in a class action, against Apple if they attempt to brick the phone or they don't carefully protect your rights as a consumer by not negligently creating software that they know could potentially brick the phone.
The way it is set up,that is an AT&T for life phone, not a AT&T for 2 years phone.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple are selling what is essentially a sealed unit, every single device out there should be 100% identical (other than user data) in Apples view, so why should they check to see if their universal update to the iPhone would cause your individual unit harm? Its an extra hassle and effort that they really should have no need to do, since they sold the item with the intent of it remaining identical.
If you change the game by modding or unlocking the iPhone, the onus is on you and you alone to then keep abreast of the play and pay due diligence to any updates to ensure they don't have any adverse effect on your non standard item.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I go back to my original post and repeat what I said there: Don't apply updates if you are at all concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may consider it justified to steal from someone who has billions and immoral to steal from someone who doesn't (I'm not saying unlocking an iPhone is stealing, I am just using an obvious example), but the morality of theft depends on if it is theft or not, not who the victim is.
(Admittedly - this is purely my position and opinion, and not absolute fact.)
Moral Frameworks (Score:3, Insightful)
As an example, the iPhone could be unlocked abroad (where there is no AT&T) so that the owner can reach their insurer for payment for an essential operation.
I agree that this isn't a matter of who the other party is, but there are all sorts of times when one has cau
why try ? (Score:3, Insightful)
like, already mentioned fic neo with openmoko/qtopia.
instead, painful attempts to hack or use the device that the manufacturer has quite clearly noted it does not want to be hacked (or even used, in some cases
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is some seriously flawed logic. Look, the iPhone was promised to only work on Cingular/Att. That's it. That's all. You had three simple choices.
a)buy iphone with att service
b)buy iphone, unlock it, and bite the bullet
c)don't buy iphone
Apple isn't obligated to do any of the things you mentioned. All Apple has done, is sell a device that works as advertised. That is their only obligation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rich
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seriously think you actually own anything anymore, in this society, in this century? Perhaps you own the lump of plastic and silicon. Certainly not its actual ability to function though. Welcome to the modern world.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you bought a car off of ford and they said "if you use it for racing you might break it" then you say whatever and buy it and race it anyway and it's fine, then ford sends out a "representative" to put sand in your gearbox and smash your windscreen, who then turns round and says "well i told you it might break if you raced it", would it be immoral to get your money back from ford?
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it might "brick" a hacked iPod without them meaning to (note, Phil Schiller is quoted as specially referring to 'unlocked or hacked' iPhones). Even if they are just making a minor update to a simple app, they might be using a newer version of an existing library in the new version, so that library update gets rolled into the delta too. That might also mean other more core things (which have been recompiled to also use that new library) get included and a hack that hooks into them might break, which would screw up the device, rendering it unusable.
This is unlikely to affect users who have only unlocked their phone and is much more likely to affect at users who have also modded their phones in other ways (particularly if they have any software that activates on startup - and particularly software that might screw up if it can't start properly).
I don't have an iPhone, but I'm assuming even if it was "bricked" to the point of not being able to start up normally it would *still* be possible to reset the firmware on it (as it is with the iPods), so it wouldn't *really* be bricked - hence my use of inverted commas.
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely not legal as they are challenging a consumer's right to do with his personally owned property what he wishes.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not going to go out and force those users to install the update. Those users that have voided their warranties and unlocked their phones were given a warning. Apple was actually being nice instead of just putting out the update and then having a huge splash in the news when all those unlocked iPhones suddenly turned into bricks.
Once someone unlocked the phone Apple's no longer has an responsibility to make future updates work with that hack. The end user is responsible. The end user can do whatever they want with the product. Just don't go back to the company that sold it to you and complain if you can not get it to work outside of the network they told you it was designed for.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
All of our code went through an amazing amount of quality control - from design to deployment - to ensure that device never becomes a brick. However, in one instance, I recall another manufacturer with exactly that problem - the software was flawed enough such that the device could brick itself.
There was a work-around: ship the unit back to a service center, have a tech open up the device, and snap on a specialty programmer to reload the corrected low level code. The problem was that the manufacturer was not prepared for such an event, and so they didn't have the techs or equipment to perform this service fast enough for consumers. The cost went into several millions.
Of course, that's the case of a device with a flaw delivered from the manufacturer. It's quite different when the customer starts messing around with the guts of low-level firmware. At that point, it is only fair to have the customer pay for the physical disassembly and reprogramming, shipping, and associated administrative costs.
So "might" it happen? Yes, as it has happened, both by the manufacturer (in error), and countless times by individuals who screw around and inadvertently change APIs or inject buggy code that could be invoked by a simple software update. This isn't just an Apple thing - it happens industry wide.
I'm not saying that iPhone hackers are wrong. I'm just saying that they have to be very careful, and be prepared to "eat the cost" of any changes that brick the device. Changing low-level code is NEVER something to do without a lot of careful checking.
Hell, I know of a few dozen motherboard manufacturers that say that you should never upgrade your BIOS with even official updates unless you are very very sure that you need the update. I'm sure THEY wouldn't be too keen on getting back a few 10,000 motherboards with crapped out, user-customized BIOS firmware - why should Apple?
Re-locking can brick it (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's taking the position that they don't "mean" to brick it, but it just "might happen" anyways, which of course is total bullshit.
Except if you read the TUAW guide to re-locking [tuaw.com] that some people who tried to re-lock the phone found that it didn't work anymore. Some have gotten it to work again by re-unlocking, but eitherway the process seems to munge the IMEI.
Maybe, just maybe, and I know many people will have to take of the tinfoil hats to believe this, Apple actually has test units that they try out all these published hacks on. And maybe they discovered that if you used one of the SIM unlock methods it caused an issue that a
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bricked iPhone still useful... (Score:3, Funny)
Even bricked iPhones have a use... You can always blend it. [willitblend.com]
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Informative)
when you upload a crack (Score:2)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they made it a background/transparent upgrade over-the-air without the user's knowledge then I could see it being a legal issue since it would unknowingly stop their service and potentially leave them stranded in an emergency. An iTunes update just makes it an annoyance, so long as they prompt you saying "Warning: if you unlocked your iPhone this will disable it."
Anybody that unlocked their iPhone must have known there'd be fallout, and that the future would probably turn into a game of cat-and-mouse. They unlock the phone, Apple brick the phone, they unbrick it, etc.
I personally think all phones should be sold unlocked, but it's rare to find them. The fact that Apple is reactively fighting back is a little new, but not unseen.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, the only way Apple could release a firmware update that would brick a hack iPhone is if they INTENTIONALLY brick it on detection of the hack. This "oh gee, it might happen" attitude is BULLSHIT. You KNOW Apple is testing the hacks internally to see how they work, and KNOW that they have been testing updates against hacked phones
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL but in the UK this would almost certainly breach the Computer Misuse Act. Section 3 says that "A person is guilty of an offence if (a) he does any act which causes the unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer". All that's needed is a simple letter to Apple and O2 telling them that you withdraw any previously granted permission for them to modify your firmware in any way. In so doing, you might put yourself in breach of your contract with O2 but I doubt if the right to push sofware onto your handset would be regarded as a fundamental contract term.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(Side note: captcha is "contempt". Hmm.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they don't. They sold it, you know, thats when something changes from one owner to another. It's supposed to be *your* iPhone. That's a pretty basic concept and it's scary to see how people are losing sight of those things when you show them some shiny gadget. There is al lot of that stuff out there, like "Never mind the DRM, look shiny new Aero interface!" or "Never mind your privacy, look shiny new web 2.0 website!".
What are they to do... (Score:2)
Anyway what are they to do: sell their iPhones and buy iPod Touch, this is what they wanted right?
Statutory rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing so simply breaks the warranty.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Build a very expensive house? (Score:4, Funny)
Bricks have uses too. You can build houses from them. Very expensive houses. But bricks are bricks after all.
Re:Build a very expensive house? (Score:4, Funny)
I think... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are surprised by Apple's behavior, you should take a look at some news archives and see what Apple has done in the past. And if you think that they won't try to shut off unlocked iPhones, you REALLY need to review the news archives. In the Apple world, "lock-in" takes on an entirely new meaning.
Going one better (Score:3, Interesting)
impying any 3rd party software is not warrantable? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how long Apple will be able to play hardball before they are in court on the wrong end of a class action suit?
How to relock an iPhone (Score:5, Informative)
There are instructions on how to relock an iPhone here [tuaw.com]
It seems a bit involved
That is the question (Score:3, Funny)
Thats What You Get... (Score:2, Funny)
If he says no,you better listen.After all he is richer,smarter and better than you.Think Different.
Legal responsibility (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure this is actionable! (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it is time to stop thinking of Apple as anything less than an even more evil version of Microsoft with slightly less money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You should feel happy that Apple is warning people that if they unlocked the phone they shouldn't install the update. They didn't have to do that.
You can be sure that any iPhone returned for warranty will be checked for unlocking and returned unfixed if found. As has been said many times, you can sue anybody for anything in the US. In this case
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which service pack was it that caused windows installations with invalid keys to stop working?
Eula? (Score:2)
I am waiting for a Neo1973 OpenMoko phone (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I am waiting for a Neo1973 OpenMoko phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I am waiting for a Neo1973 OpenMoko phone (Score:4, Informative)
iPhone Unlocking, Ethical and Practical (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an Apple fanboy - I've used Macs since 1984, worked for Apple for a couple of years, and have promoted Apple equipment and software where I've been employed. But at this moment, I'm disgusted. There is no need to disable the unlocked iPhone's, and Jobs and crew should damn well accept that some of us actually refuse to use AT&T on principal. Think Different my a**.
I'm not going to subscribe to AT&T. AT&T, the firm that's trying to eliminate net neutrality. AT&T, the reconstituted (near) monopoly. AT&T the firm that opened their switch boxes to the NSA without hesitation and is now attempting to manipulate legislation to provide immunity from prosecution in that matter.
On a practical note, Does Mr. Jobs even recognize how expensive his bed partner is overseas? And this matter practically to myself and my family. Apple, as normal, has forgotten that Israel exists. Apple has, as far as I know, has never sold its products directly in Israel. If I want to send an iPhone to my family in Israel, should I have to sign up for AT&T and pay for their pathetic World Traveler plan? The world does exist outside the US and a few European markets.
Incidentally - my evil unlocked iPhone works perfectly on T-Mobile - without Visual Voice Mail, but gods, I'll live. So what, precisely, is the point of altering the modem firmware, except to break unlocking? Point out examples of the baseband firmware wreaking havoc on the network; explain how this change benefits users.
The iPhone is the first tablet computer I've seen that inspires the imagination. I want to write programs for it, I want to explore a new user interface. If it runs OS X, treat it like an OS X box and let us get on with writing the programs that will sell the bloody thing. Don't freeze us out while you write such amazing accomplishments as the "Wireless i-Tunes Store" while we're trying to write vertical apps for the medical profession, law, and other fields.
Job's, former AT&T hacker, has decided to repeat the folly of the early closed Mac, the early closed NeXT, and even at times the Newton. Apple made a terrible choice in its partner, and seems incapable of realizing the potential of the iPhone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes and no (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No one is forcing you to buy any phone from any carrier. If Apple wants me to sign up with AT&T, they should make me sign a contract to that effect. This cat and mouse game is stupid. EVERY GSM phone has been unlocked. The iPhone is no exception.
Personally, I'm not willing to put up with Apple's bullshit. I won't buy their iPods (which only sync with iTune
And so it goes (Score:3, Interesting)
Undo the hack (Score:4, Informative)
The solution is to reverse the changes before updating. There is a preliminary guide to doing this at:
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/24/how-to-relock-your-iphone-before-the-firmware-update/ [tuaw.com]
Of course, this means that your phone is no longer unlocked.
The other option is to just not upgrade.
Don't tell me no-one saw this coming? (Score:3, Insightful)
For goodness sake people, you don't buy Apple products because they're cheap or because you want to save money; nay fellow brethren, you buy because Apple products are the coolest, the best user-tested, and yea, because you are blessed enough to afford luxury. It comes at a price.
Amen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That price? Your freedom.
One more thing..... cyberterrorism? WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a company intentionally destroys your property and thus denies you the rightful use of your property, how is that *ANY* different than a DDOS?
If Apple does this, it should be sued into the ground. I'm not talking just statutory damages, I'm talking "punitive" damages intended to reduce the likelihood they do this crap again. If every iPhone use who gets bricked sues for $1m, it could be interesting.
I am sick of U.S. companies treating customers like shit. Damn it! Make a good product, sell a million of them, and support your customers. What the hell is so difficult about that formula? It is the basis of real capitalism, not this fascist lock you in and bend you over crap companies are doing today.
Apple release more details (Score:5, Funny)
Then the phone will disable itself.
Shortly after, you will meet with a mysterious accident.
Apple users that we interviewed were of the opinion that while this was a good first step, it didn't really go quite far enough. "Ideally I'd like to see the offender's family murdered in the streets as well. It's really the only way to teach the proper respect for Apple's products and business strategy.", said one person who was soon copied by all the others in an attempt to show their individuality.
An Apple spokesman who we contacted offered the following statement, "LOL, Windows, LOL!".
Thank gods... (Score:4, Informative)
I have a small scratch on my iPhone driving me insane, which is not enough to warrent an exchange.
I will have to explain to my family that they should *not* update the firmware if they want to keep using t-moble, at least until someone else figures out how to unlock the phone. Or I will simply install my backup copy of the current firmware, no harm done and all.
I mean, being able to play a few games while in airplane mode, having free personal ringtones ripped from our own media, using t-mobile, an ebay tracker, an application that uses cellphone triangulation to calculate your location on the map, an AIM client, a digital recorder for lectures and meetings, a quickbooks app, an ebook reader, and a NES emulator; are all worth more to us then having an itunes store on the phone that lets us know what songs are playing in our local starbucks... I mean with the tmobile 'total internet' package (for $19.95 a month), I can use the tmobile hotspot in my local starbucks, for speeds faster then EDGE.... A greater convinence in my mind.
quote (Score:4, Insightful)
"Shanna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."
Honestly, they are not using the iPhone as intended and they full well knew it. To make Apple take into account third-party hackery is just silly. I'm not saying I like the idea of a locked-down iPhone in the first place, but that is not the argument here.
Re:quote (Score:5, Insightful)
This crap of bricking the iPhone is pure nonsense, when it's easy enough to avoid without completely pissing off the customer.
Remember the old adage: "Whether you CAN do something is irrelevant, it's whether or not you SHOULD do it." (I know I mangled that, so please don't nail me on correctness).
Words of wisdom, those are (to paraphrase Yoda).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what Apple has said ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And so... (Score:4, Insightful)
- defective by design hardware featuring crippleware to degrade functionality in the event of uses which differ from the uses the parent company approves
- intentional attempt to force customers to buy uncompetitive/unattractive services in addition to the thing they want
- vague and misleading corporate spin which dodges the real issue
Apple have done some good stuff lately, particularly playing hardball over music licensing on iTunes. But this is not good, and you should have the guts to say so, just as you would if it was Microsoft or some other similar company.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple made a mistake by locking the iPhone to a single provider. If Apple's execs are shocked and appalled that computer nerds are modifying what is basically a portable computer, they need to be replaced with people who actually understand what techies will do with c
Re:Quiiiick. (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, in Europe (I don't know about the US) phones *must* be unlockable (providers often refer to this a 'subsidy code' - it's cheaper to buy it from a third party). It can be around 3-4 UKP to buy a subsidy code (generated from your IMEI) online, it's usually about 10-20 UKP to get it done on the high street and about 50+ UKP to get one from the original provider.
After the contract period is up on AT&T from what I have read I believe they are letting you use the device with other providers . I'm not sure if that is through legal mandate or not, as I've indicated I don't know what US legislation there is covering network interoperability for mobile phones.
In either case their most certianly ARE going to be unlocked iPhones out there, that's not the issue. All that's being said here is that "if you've modified the software on your iPhone, upgrading it [i.e. applying a binary delta which is intend to patch against the original OS] might prevent the phone from booting". I would add that if you find that even remotely surprising you are not sufficiently technical to be messing around applying 3rd party hacks to your phone's OS (and that you can almost certainly restore the original firmware on it, even if it won't boot - as with the iPod's).
Slashdot is mis-representing the truth and people who love an excuse to rant against Apple are lapping it up in blind ignorance.