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.'"
What did you expect... (Score:1, Insightful)
Statutory rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now my question is, what exactly do they need to update that would cause such brickage.
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?
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, 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:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe I should go spike mine down onto the pavement then return it for a replacement as well?
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, and I don't own any IPayApple products and don't care about them, not a fan, but I see how the fan's minds work here: they buy IPayToApple products and rightfully expect to use them anyway they want, not how the Apple intended. But from Apple point of view this is a 'total experience' package, not just a piece of hardware. So they may introduce a patch that will 'brick' the phone. However the fans still expect to upgrade with Apple firmware and continue using the phones the way they want. Well obviously this is a conflict of interest for both sides. Should Apple have to provide you with meaningful upgrades once you unlock? I don't see how you can make them. Don't install their upgrades now, that you are really just using the phone in a way that is different from the 'total experience' Apple intended. Now you just own a piece of hardware and it is up to you how to use it.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm sure this is actionable! (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, you won't win.
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.
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.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:iPhone Unlocking, Ethical and Practical (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, 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: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.)
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:I am waiting for a Neo1973 OpenMoko phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlocking phones is something that is explicitly legal in the US - there's even a DMCA exemption for it. There's absolutely no legal justification for doing this.
Furthermore, Apple got their money, and so did AT&T - you can't buy an iPhone without a contract, so everyone with an unlocked phone already paid everyone involved. There's no moral justification for doing this either. Apple is getting arrogant in its success, and it's making the same old "lock everything down" mistakes that led to it being destroyed by the PC.
The people who have iPhones right now are, by and large, Apples best customers. They're early adopters, who love shiny gadgets and who are willing to pay a premium to get the latest thing right away. They're the bread and butter of Apples product line. They don't give a damn about AT&T, though, and bricking their phone in an attempt to force people to stay with them would be a huge mistake.
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, 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.
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:Statutory rights? (Score:1, Insightful)
Or are you telling me that it's OK for Apple to break it, but if it's unlocked I can't go and ask them to fix it back?
Re:And so... (Score:2, Insightful)
defective by design hardware featuring crippleware to degrade functionality in the event of uses which differ from the uses the parent company approves...
I am comfortable with what Apple needs to do to maintain its relationship with AT&T wrt the iPhone. Without AT&T (and I'm not saying I like AT&T), there'd be no iPhone.
intentional attempt to force customers to buy uncompetitive/unattractive services in addition to the thing they want...
"Force" implies monopoly. Dude, you are not "forced" to do anything here--buy a Blackberry.
vague and misleading corporate spin which dodges the real issue...
Really? What part do you think is misleading? Apple has an agreement with AT&T. They are doing what they can (and, btw, are legally entitled to do) to maintain that relationship while the agreement is in place.
I cannot believe that people who hacked their phones (or support the hack philosophy) to work outside the intent of Apple are up in arms that they've taken matters into their own hands.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 cause to distrust someone, and it is reasonable to treat them differently from someone who you do trust. Do you go out of your way to help someone who has cried "wolf" too many times, when there are others who haven't?
The DMCA was recently deliberately ammended to allow phones to be cracked for the purpose of running on other networks; Apple is already running against the spirit of the law, and possibly also the letter. Cracking the phone is moral, for Apple know the laws that apply, and their intent, when they are selling the iPhone; they have no excuse to complain.
Those who have cracked their phones, or had them cracked, did so in the rational expectation that doing so would be legal, and indeed allowed. Apple's behaviour is shady, even if it is not illegal.
So what Apple has said ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Is that even legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"The customer is always right" (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes and no (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:2, Insightful)
use a product, any product, outside of the way it was designed and marketed to sell at your OWN risk and we the company are not liable. I do believe this is pretty much standard language of any warranty on any product being sold today.
Welcome to reality. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you buy a car from GM, install an after-market modification (some kind of performance chip, etc.), it is quite possible that they may issue a recall that would either a) be denied b/c of your after-market modification, b) cause your modification to stop working or c) cause your car to stop working. Do you think it's GM's responsibility to test each an every modification that someone might make to a car before releasing a recall? Do you think it's Apple's responsibility to test each and every possible software hack out there before releasing an update?
They are selling their phone as a closed-box device, like a toaster or a DVD player. If you want to screw with it, fine, but don't expect any help from Apple getting it to work again. Quit complaining.
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:What did you expect... (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 computers and plan accordingly.
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:1, Insightful)
Let me put it in slashdot terms:
A dell/hp/whatever computer (hardware like the iphone) you buy has the warranty voided when you load linux (the iphone software unlocker or 3rd party app). Does that sound reasonable or fair?
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!".
Apple's BS reminds me of the riddle: (Score:2, Insightful)
Q: How many cops does it take to push a suspect down a stairwell?
A: None, he just slipped!
So the Apple version is:
Q: How many firmware updates does it take to sabotage an unlocked iPhone?
A: None, it just bricked!
Which just goes to show:
Q: What do you get when you cross Apple and AT&T?
A: AT&T!
-Don
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:Is that even legal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, better yet, say you took your car to NonExistentCarCompany, and they said "This isnt under warranty", and then ran a software upgrade which caused your car not to start anymore. Now, even further, imagine that this "problem" wasnt a mistake at all, but they are DELIBERATELY crippling your upgraded vehicle.
The issue here isnt about whether or not Apple is required to take care of hacked iPhone user's phones. The issue here is that Apple is almost certainly SABOTAGING a product that you bought from them, and ARE USING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW.
Right, you're not using the product within limits of the warranty. That's fine and well. But you ARE using it legally, and Apple is going out of their way to DESTROY YOUR property. To me, this is tantamount to vandalism on a semi-massive level, and whether or not Apple is within bounds of the law here DOES need to be questioned.
Remember, if they are DELIBERATELY disabling these iPhones, they are *not* working on THEIR devices. They are going after other people's merchandise and shutting it off, not because you broke the law, but because they just "dont approve of what you're doing with the device they manufactured".
Even Microsoft at least has the fallback standpoint of "We're trying to stop the people who steal our software, which we have a right to charge for". People with unlocked iPhones didnt STEAL the iPhone. They already paid Apple their damn money. And if Apple is going after them to shut them off for "not being our ass-slaves and doing everything the exact way we tell you to", then in my opinion this is completely unacceptable corporate behavior. It only remains to be seen how the legal system feels (or is paid to feel) about that.
Re-locking can brick it (Score:3, Insightful)
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 baseband upgrade found in their new firmware upgrade will cause a problem. And maybe, just maybe, in order to avoid a flurry of bad press, they slipped this information out so that people who would be affected would have a chance to try to reverse what they have done first, or avoid the update until the hackers figure it out, so that there aren't stories all over the net this week about how Apple killed the iPhones that were hacked.
Yes, Apple has said that they don't want the iPhone SIM hacked, and they have to since they have exclusive deals with carriers. Heck since they seem to be getting a cut of service fees they probably really don't want you to do it, even though it will lead to more sales of units, especially if the fees work out to as much or more than the profit they make on the device itself. However in those same quotes of Jobs and Schiller saying that they don't want to see SIM unlocks, they also mention being interested in non-network local apps, and the possibility of doing something with them in the future.
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: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: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: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.
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.
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:Don't tell me no-one saw this coming? (Score:3, Insightful)
That price? Your freedom.
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: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
So don't apply the update (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is that even legal? (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:2, Insightful)
Regardless I still stand by the fact that Apple only promised this phone would work with ATT. At this point though, if you have an iphone and use it with another carrier, you're stuck with the firmware version you've got now (assuming this next patch is verified to actually break unlocked phones).
So I guess the answer is yes. It would be wrong to take back a product you intentionally voided the warranty on, then bricked your phone during a voluntary update. Especially since the news is out that the next update could potentially break your new phone. I would hope that anyone smart enough to know about phone unlocking and has actually unlocked their phone, would keep up with things enough to see this warning from apple about the potential to brick the phone, and take the appropriate steps to protect their device.
I guess in my mind the four things that are overlooked in all of this mess, are that 1, nobody forced you to buy an iPhone 2, you were only promised it would work with att 3, you don't have to apply the firmware updates from apple 4, bricking the iphone with this next upgrade is still only speculation.
I hope that Apple is just taking the middle of the road stance "we don't promise anything in regards to unlocked phones" as a way to cover their asses in regards to their deal with ATT, and isn't actively shutting down unlocking paths as I'd like to unlock my phone when my contract is up.
Cheers.
Re:Is that even legal? (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:Is that even legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Liability has to extend past the manufacturer's intent, to cover what a purchaser might reasonably be considered to do with a product. Q-tips emblazons on every package that they're not supposed to be put into your ear. But everyone knows that you use them to clean out your ear canal. There's no way their disclaimer would hold up in court. Likewise for the iPhone, if the only reason it doesn't work on other networks is an artificial software lock, then I think it's very reasonable to expect people to try to unlock the phone.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:1, Insightful)