PDA

View Full Version : Schiller on iPhone Unlocks and Incompatibility




MacRumors
Sep 24, 2007, 10:01 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple's Phil Schiller was quoted by an Associated Press article (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Apple-iPhone.html) about today's announcement (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/24/apple-issues-warning-on-iphone-unlocking/) that SIM Unlocked iPhones may become permanently disabled by upcoming iPhone updates.

Schiller clarifies that this is not an intentional move to disable unlocked iPhones:
''This has nothing to do with proactively disabling a phone that is unlocked or hacked,'' Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in an interview. ''It's unfortunate that some of these programs have caused damage to the iPhone software, but Apple cannot be responsible for ... those consequences.''

To clarify, this appears to affect iPhones that have been specifically SIM Unlocked to use other carrier SIM cards besides AT&T. iPhones otherwise "hacked" to install 3rd party applications are unlikely to be affected in the same manner.

There has already been one tutorial (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/24/relocking-your-iphone/) on how to relock your iPhone. We'll be posting coverage of apps, tools, tutorials at our iPhone blog (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/).

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/24/schiller-on-iphone-unlocks-and-incompatibility/)



gugy
Sep 24, 2007, 10:05 PM
anybody surprised by this?

Apple is doing what is the right thing.

notjustjay
Sep 24, 2007, 10:10 PM
"My pals Guido and Luigi here, they suggest you pay us. You know, to protect you. This has nothing to do with proactively jumpin' you, or nothin'. I'm just saying... it'd be real unfortunate if anything happened to you, is all..."

sanford
Sep 24, 2007, 10:11 PM
[url=http://www.macrumors.com]Schiller clarifies that this is not an intentional move to disable unlocked iPhones.

Ha. I'm anti-unlocking and even I don't believe that. Anybody wonder why it's *all* the unlock software and methods, but *none* of the third-party applications and installer hacks that have "damaged the iPhone's software". Note, damaged to the point that it *cannot ever be restored*?!?!?!? Please, it's intentional. Has to be. They just can't tell a customer base they'd intentionally break something to keep it locked down.

DMann
Sep 24, 2007, 10:11 PM
no intentional sabotage to hackers. This is merely a warning.

sanford
Sep 24, 2007, 10:12 PM
"My pals Guido and Luigi here, they suggest you pay us. You know, to protect you. This has nothing to do with proactively jumpin' you, or nothin'. I'm just saying... it'd be real unfortunate if anything happened to you, is all..."

Now *that* is about the perfect translation of Schiller's statement.

TurboSC
Sep 24, 2007, 10:15 PM
That sounds about right... At least they aren't actively punishing those who are increasing the abilities of the iPhone for the general population just the ones who are buying 500 iPhones and selling them in China.

I think it's a very fair move on Apple's part.

DickArmAndHarT
Sep 24, 2007, 10:39 PM
That sounds about right... At least they aren't actively punishing those who are increasing the abilities of the iPhone for the general population just the ones who are buying 500 iPhones and selling them in China.

I think it's a very fair move on Apple's part.

Sorry my friend but I don't think ANYBODY is buying iPhones to ship to china because china already has their own iPhone:eek::eek:

badtzmaru
Sep 24, 2007, 10:41 PM
to clarify, this is NOT a New York Times story. It's an Associated Press story that happens to be on the NYT site.

Iced Angel
Sep 24, 2007, 10:42 PM
they should sell this product free of any contract ...

chuckles:)
Sep 24, 2007, 10:44 PM
That sounds about right... At least they aren't actively punishing those who are increasing the abilities of the iPhone for the general population just the ones who are buying 500 iPhones and selling them in China.

I think it's a very fair move on Apple's part.

You mean Canda, not China. Toronto has more iPhone users per capida then any other city in the world, and ALL of them are unlocked. Due to a spat between apple and rogers, we wont be getting the iPhone legally up here for a while, and so we'll continue to hack away! (even if it means we have 2 wait to update our software).

mithun914
Sep 24, 2007, 10:47 PM
You mean Canda, not China. Toronto has more iPhone users per capida then any other city in the world, and ALL of them are unlocked. Due to a spat between apple and rogers, we wont be getting the iPhone legally up here for a while, and so we'll continue to hack away! (even if it means we have 2 wait to update our software).

I second that !

Am with u my fellow Canadian.

iliketomac
Sep 24, 2007, 10:52 PM
This could aslo be interpreted as another "cat & mouse" challenge to the dev team (hackers, coders, etc...) ;)

polishmacuser
Sep 24, 2007, 10:53 PM
so you guys are telling me that i unlocked the phone now and now even if i restore it back to factory settings it will still be broken and im screwed or what? please tell me its going to be ok :( im worried

ngdesign
Sep 24, 2007, 11:05 PM
so you guys are telling me that i unlocked the phone now and now even if i restore it back to factory settings it will still be broken and im screwed or what? please tell me its going to be ok :( im worried

No need to worry brother, we'll always a way to fix things. Human nature

elcerrito494
Sep 24, 2007, 11:07 PM
You guys are brainwashed! OBVIOUSLY Apple is intentionally bricking the iPhone. They don't make any money if people use T-Mobile!

iliketomac
Sep 24, 2007, 11:08 PM
so you guys are telling me that i unlocked the phone now and now even if i restore it back to factory settings it will still be broken and im screwed or what? please tell me its going to be ok :( im worried

Right now as of today, NO - even if you do a full restore, your unlocked iPhone will still be unlocked but all the patched files will be gone though so this means you'll have to re-activate and jailbreak again... Just don't do an update when the new software/firmware update is released. Wait it out - and read/reasearch on the dev team's progress when they tackle the next update. Like what Steve implied, it's a Tom & Jerry sorta thing! :cool: So do not panic... yet. ;)

polishmacuser
Sep 24, 2007, 11:13 PM
Right now as of today, NO - even if you do a full restore, your unlocked iPhone will still be unlocked but all the patched files will be gone though so this means you'll have to re-activate and jailbreak again... Just don't do an update when the new software/firmware update is released. Wait it out - and read/reasearch on the dev team's progress when they tackle the next update. Like what Steve implied, it's a Tom & Jerry sorta thing! :cool: So do not panic... yet. ;)
ok i have at&t i just dont want to pay the high prices in europe and your saying that the program unlock screwed my phone over damn it :( i just dont have to update it thats all ok.....this sucks :( a.k.a its the gui version

arn
Sep 24, 2007, 11:15 PM
Anybody wonder why it's *all* the unlock software and methods, but *none* of the third-party applications and installer hacks that have "damaged the iPhone's software

This has been covered already. The Unlock software modifies the firmware. The other installer hacks simply copies and modifies files stored in the 4/8GB Flash.

arn

happydude
Sep 24, 2007, 11:19 PM
this is just a good faith attempt to get the apple loyal who happen not to be at&t loyal to get their iphones back to factory settings before the next update. anyone who unlocked their phone did so knowing the risks and understood that this was inevitable. they bought it with free knowledge of a contract to legitimately use the iphone and then worked around it. time for apple to update as they would, they, i'm sure took a few of their iphones laying around and unlocked them, applied the the update and they crashed. iphones not unlocked were unscathed. user fault. iphones can be anti unlocked, be thankful someone figured that one out, so restore your iphone, update it and then go back to doing what you want but be aware you'll have to restore it again during the next major update. nature of the beast, man, nature of the beast.

p.s. if microsoft came up with a phone zune and you unlocked it to use whatever carrier you wanted, do you really think gates or whoever would go out and say, "by the way, you might want to restore your icrapcoloredphonezune back to factory settings because we're about to release an update that might render it as useful as a brick." common, you've gotta be kidding me. apple cares, they understand someone bought an iphone but didn't want the contract, but that person is an apple customer first and they're taking care of all them.

Unspeaked
Sep 24, 2007, 11:21 PM
I love seeing Apple, the company that lived in an impenetrable castle for so many years behind proprietary hardware and software, having to fend of the wolves (i.e. hackers) now that they're on the Intel platform - with hacked versions of OS X running on AMDs and non-Apple Intels - and breaking into the cell phone market - where I reckon there's people who've been hacking and unlocking for so long and do it so well that they could out-program the entire Apple iPhone Development team combined. It's such a change of pace...

In any case, this is a losing battle Apple is fighting. Especially now that the initial unlock has been released, I bet it takes no longer than 48 hours for the iPhone hacking community to break any subsequent updates.

Unspeaked
Sep 24, 2007, 11:24 PM
time for apple to update as they would, they, i'm sure took a few of their iphones laying around and unlocked them, applied the the update and they crashed. iphones not unlocked were unscathed. user fault.

You think?

I bet it went more like this: created iPhone update, unlocked some of their iPhones, it worked perfectly, tweaked update, tried it again on unlocked iPhones, worked perfectly, tweaked again a few more times, tried it on unlocked iPhones, crash, BINGO! we have a release candidate!

chimerical
Sep 24, 2007, 11:25 PM
So does "other carriers" include unlocking to use the iPhone with your existing AT&T SIM cards? (This would be for those who don't want to start a new 2-year plan with a data plan, while sacrificing visual voicemail.)

seedster2
Sep 24, 2007, 11:27 PM
so you guys are telling me that i unlocked the phone now and now even if i restore it back to factory settings it will still be broken and im screwed or what? please tell me its going to be ok :( im worried

Stop the panic:eek:

Just dont update the software until you hear otherwise. You're phone will continue to work without issue

Djspice
Sep 24, 2007, 11:27 PM
p.s. if microsoft came up with a phone zune and you unlocked it to use whatever carrier you wanted, do you really think gates or whoever would go out and say, "by the way, you might want to restore your icrapcoloredphonezune back to factory settings because we're about to release an update that might render it as useful as a brick." common, you've gotta be kidding me. apple cares, they understand someone bought an iphone but didn't want the contract, but that person is an apple customer first and they're taking care of all them.

This is probably one of the most intelligent things I've read in these forums in a while. Keep it up happydude!:)

dethl
Sep 24, 2007, 11:28 PM
This has nothing to do with proactively disabling a phone that is unlocked or hacked.

Not according to your boss - ol' Stevie

From: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137330-c,iphone/article.html
It's a cat-and-mouse game," said Jobs. "We try to stay ahead. People will try to break in, and it's our job to stop them breaking in."

Ever since Steve Jobs has said no 3rd party apps I have been against the iPhone. This will continue so until Apple decides to stop being so damn greedy with their cell phones. People paid full price for them - let them do with it as they please and DON'T do anything, accidental or purposely, that will break their ability to do as such.

gwangung
Sep 24, 2007, 11:31 PM
I love seeing Apple, the company that lived in an impenetrable castle for so many years behind proprietary hardware and software, having to fend of the wolves (i.e. hackers) now that they're on the Intel platform - with hacked versions of OS X running on AMDs and non-Apple Intels - and breaking into the cell phone market - where I reckon there's people who've been hacking and unlocking for so long and do it so well that they could out-program the entire Apple iPhone Development team combined. It's such a change of pace...

In any case, this is a losing battle Apple is fighting. Especially now that the initial unlock has been released, I bet it takes no longer than 48 hours for the iPhone hacking community to break any subsequent updates.

I think you're under the naive impression they CARE.

Hell of a lot easier to do what the hell you want and not worry than to go out deliberately and break a third party hack.

NewtypeCJ
Sep 24, 2007, 11:33 PM
In any case, this is a losing battle Apple is fighting. Especially now that the initial unlock has been released, I bet it takes no longer than 48 hours for the iPhone hacking community to break any subsequent updates.

Then why's it been a week-plus and the iPod Touch isn't hacked? If the Touch and the iPhone are such similar devices, I think the hacking community will need more than 48 hours to crack this one.

happydude
Sep 24, 2007, 11:34 PM
So does "other carriers" include unlocking to use the iPhone with your existing AT&T SIM cards? (This would be for those who don't want to start a new 2-year plan with a data plan, while sacrificing visual voicemail.)

sure, you knew the contract. you unlocked it, broke the contract, live with it, man. that's all i'm saying here. i hate the fact that in the u.s. the telecommunications industry (of which apple is now a part) has such a hold on congress they can force a monopoly, squash competitor development (i.e. look at japan's current line of cell phones and their abilities compared to ours), and lock you into contracts just to be able to use a phone that is legally yours and force you to use your phone the way they dictate it must be so. in this land of corporations first, ceo's are kings and we are forced loyalists. be that as it may be, thems the rules. i wholeheartedly support getting around those rules, but at the same time, apple can legally and ethically (in the u.s. market, anyway) put out an update that [oops] bricks unlocked iphones. part of the risk. civil disobedience sometimes lands you in the hotspot. thems the rules, thems the risks.

towlieban
Sep 24, 2007, 11:37 PM
A word of advice to all, do not try to relock your phone. There is a chance that what happened to me will happen to you. After I relocked, I got an error that the SIM card isn't valid and the only thing you can do is make an emergency call. I found that you can use an activation tool called independence which will let you do everything but make an actual phone call.

I would not recommend this procedure to anyone.

polishmacuser
Sep 24, 2007, 11:39 PM
i just cant believe this is happening :( because of steve and at&t i cant use my iphone in europe bastards i love steve and all but cmon on people. America sucks when it comes to this europe has like every phone unlocked why cant the iphone be unlocked damn it.

polishmacuser
Sep 24, 2007, 11:40 PM
A word of advice to all, do not try to relock your phone. There is a chance that what happened to me will happen to you. After I relocked, I got an error that the SIM card isn't valid and the only thing you can do is make an emergency call. I found that you can use an activation tool called independence which will let you do everything but make an actual phone call.

I would not recommend this procedure to anyone.dude thanks i was about to try it :( im really outraged well at least halo 3 comes out tomorrow lol :)

strurtle
Sep 24, 2007, 11:43 PM
p.s. if microsoft came up with a phone zune and you unlocked it to use whatever carrier you wanted, do you really think gates or whoever would go out and say, "by the way, you might want to restore your icrapcoloredphonezune back to factory settings because we're about to release an update that might render it as useful as a brick." common, you've gotta be kidding me. apple cares, they understand someone bought an iphone but didn't want the contract, but that person is an apple customer first and they're taking care of all them.

You know, M$ pulled a surprise with the xbox 360 when it had its spring update. No warning at all. Just the ban hammer getting thrown to people who updated the dvd's firmware with a hacked one.

Apple has warned the iphone community. Their ban hammer is coming!!

However, just don't upgrade the firmware until someone has figured out a way around it. Also, once that team figures it out, give them a donation for their time and effort.

happydude
Sep 24, 2007, 11:47 PM
However, just don't upgrade the firmware until someone has figured out a way around it. Also, once that team figures it out, give them a donation for their time and effort.

well put, sturtle.

but, as i've mentioned before, don't be surprised when the next update looks like it might hurtcha. but ya, donate to the smart folks figurin all this out so they can turn around and figure out the next one. cat and mouse. steve's secretly gotta be lovin it. :apple::apple::apple:

synth3tik
Sep 24, 2007, 11:52 PM
oK Please listen

The SIM unlock hacks alter the firmware of your iPhone, this is the heart and soul of your phone.

You knew what you were doing and if you didn't, well then here is a great lesson in technology for you.

Also, if Apple wanted to sabotage your iPhone, I doubt they would release a public warning.

Fast Shadow
Sep 25, 2007, 12:08 AM
A word of advice to all, do not try to relock your phone. There is a chance that what happened to me will happen to you. After I relocked, I got an error that the SIM card isn't valid and the only thing you can do is make an emergency call. I found that you can use an activation tool called independence which will let you do everything but make an actual phone call.

I would not recommend this procedure to anyone.

Did you remove your SIM from the phone before attempting to re-lock it?

peestandingup
Sep 25, 2007, 12:21 AM
Phil Schiller is full of it. Jobs probably made him take the wrap for this.

CJD2112
Sep 25, 2007, 12:26 AM
Then why's it been a week-plus and the iPod Touch isn't hacked? If the Touch and the iPhone are such similar devices, I think the hacking community will need more than 48 hours to crack this one.

Apples and oranges. The iPod Touch isn't a PHONE device restricted to a specific carrier, so who needs to unlock it? There isn't a need.

You think?

I bet it went more like this: created iPhone update, unlocked some of their iPhones, it worked perfectly, tweaked update, tried it again on unlocked iPhones, worked perfectly, tweaked again a few more times, tried it on unlocked iPhones, crash, BINGO! we have a release candidate!

Exactly. It explains why there was a delay in releasing the 1.1.1 firmware update for the iPhone, Apple needed time to address unlocked iPhones before releasing it (while it hasn't been a problem - yet - for the U.K.).

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 12:27 AM
Also, if Apple wanted to sabotage your iPhone, I doubt they would release a public warning.

I suppose you've never heard of this thing called "a threat" before, huh?

Peace
Sep 25, 2007, 12:36 AM
Apples and oranges. The iPod Touch isn't a PHONE device restricted to a specific carrier, so who needs to unlock it? There isn't a need.



Exactly. It explains why there was a delay in releasing the 1.1.1 firmware update for the iPhone, Apple needed time to address unlocked iPhones before releasing it (while it hasn't been a problem - yet - for the U.K.).

I'm probably dumb on this one but I wasn't aware the update was delayed.Could you please provide a link to where Apple stated when the 1.1.1 update was coming out?

btallada9870
Sep 25, 2007, 12:59 AM
I'm pretty sure I've heard this before, but I don't know anything about it. Isn't it illegal to have a phone locked? Or at least not letting the user have the option to unlock it?

Matthé
Sep 25, 2007, 01:10 AM
I'm pretty sure I've heard this before, but I don't know anything about it. Isn't it illegal to have a phone locked? Or at least not letting the user have the option to unlock it?

In Belgium it is very illegal to sell a locked phone - very curious if apple will actually sell the phone here. Somehow I think we'll be skipped.
Other countries such as the Netherlands apply a limited time locked to carrier policy only (contract of 2 years would be fine but afterwards you would be free).

ebouwman
Sep 25, 2007, 01:26 AM
In Belgium it is very illegal to sell a locked phone - very curious if apple will actually sell the phone here. Somehow I think we'll be skipped.
Other countries such as the Netherlands apply a limited time locked to carrier policy only (contract of 2 years would be fine but afterwards you would be free).

It would be nice to have policies like this in more countries (except that it keeps the iPhone away) because the best phones allways come to the worst networks.

It's a little silly that apple makes you spend so much money on a product and then TELLS you wich network you get, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to have a Sony DVD machine to play it?

CiscoGuru&aMac
Sep 25, 2007, 01:37 AM
I think it's a safe bet to play it safe here all the way around.

Most of this thread has been focused on the "What if's" regarding the update and SIM Relocking due to the explicit "Warning". I think if you have even "Spoof activated" your iPhone using iNdependence (Jailbreak), you should also play it safe and perform a software restore of 1.0.2.

Remember, even spoof activation costs Apple money as they don't get their AT&T cut. Don't be surprised that if you Jailbreaked your iPhone, you end up with a brick as well. I don't think this warning explicitly applies to SIM unlocking. If you read between the lines, I have a feeling this is going to jack a lot of iPhones with various mods.

SO I HIGHLY RECOMMEND even those who simply "Jailbreak'd" their iPhones for spoof activation, SSH/SFTP, interface hacks, etc simply perform a 1.0.2 factory restore until we know more about the 1.1.1 firmware. If those with Jailbreak'd iPhones don't get bricked when 1.1.1 comes out, then you can simply return to using 1.0.2 having the piece of mind that you will be able to update to 1.1.1 and still use your iPhone.

Obviously Jailbreak is probably going to get disabled in 1.1.1, however, what scares me more is that if your iPhone has already been Jailbroken and even returned to Jail, if you don't do a factory restore, will you even be able to upgrade to 1.1.1 at all? I think a few days of pain with this is more than worth it to find out. I would rather have an operational iPhone that can be updated to 1.1.1 and wait for whatever new version of iNdependence that comes out that allows spoof activation in 1.1.1. It's constant roulette, even so, the next update may hose your iPhone. At least until my Verizon plan expires this December, knowing the 411 on 1.1.1 is crucial to me.

The statement orginally released by Apple was a VERY COOL way of saying, we understand, we know what you did, you're a customer, just make sure you're straight before the update. I think this was insanely cool of Apple. They know they got hacked, but business being business, they have to do something about it and they are giving those in the proverbial "Know" a chance to play it straight before your iPhone is "Bricked".

towlieban
Sep 25, 2007, 01:42 AM
Fast Shadow,

I didn't remove the sim but the tutorial i followed came straight from the people who created the unlocker and I have discussed this problem with them. They told me that it has happened to some but not all people and as of now, there is nothing you can do. At best, you can hacktivate your phone so you can use all of the features of the phone except making calls because it wont recognize the sim card any more. I really can't stress enough to others to not take the chance because the phone is essentially useless if you can make calls. And keep in mind, I'm using an official AT&T activated sim card

Matthé
Sep 25, 2007, 01:43 AM
It would be nice to have policies like this in more countries (except that it keeps the iPhone away) because the best phones allways come to the worst networks.

It's a little silly that apple makes you spend so much money on a product and then TELLS you wich network you get, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to have a Sony DVD machine to play it?
the downside is we always pay full price for a phone - never get a carrier reduction because this also is illegal
one doesn't go without the other

strurtle
Sep 25, 2007, 01:44 AM
It would be nice to have policies like this in more countries (except that it keeps the iPhone away) because the best phones allways come to the worst networks.

It's a little silly that apple makes you spend so much money on a product and then TELLS you wich network you get, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to have a Sony DVD machine to play it?


$300 - $400 is not bad for a phone that is branded with the :apple: logo.
This is part of the mobile phone industry. Which here in the U.S., carriers have exclusive phones. Verizon (bell atlantic), at&t (cingular), and tmobile (voicestream) have been doing this for years.

Example, the Motorola Q phone. It's an exclusive for verizon. Price: $350 with 2 year contract.

KopThat
Sep 25, 2007, 02:03 AM
I have 2 phones on their way from the US to Oz, and I'm gonna be a naughty boy and unlock them.

We probably wont get the iPhone legally for another 6 months, with a 3G version at least 12 months away, so there have been a flood of phones heading down under.

So if you don't update the new firmware, you will miss out on the iTunes mobile, I have never actually been that desperate where I really really needed to buy a song, or download a tv show (we don't even get this yet!)

There will pioneers in the hacking world that will undo anything that apple does, there may be some iBricks along the way, but it will be service as normal sooner or later

weckart
Sep 25, 2007, 02:04 AM
I'm probably dumb on this one but I wasn't aware the update was delayed.Could you please provide a link to where Apple stated when the 1.1.1 update was coming out?

They did not have to. The iPhones at the UK launch already had that firmware revision installed and working correctly (iTunes store - whoopee!!!!1111!!) as you can read from various reports, including this site.

You can count down the delay from then. What else was there left to "test"?

tiger02
Sep 25, 2007, 02:14 AM
It would be nice to have policies like this in more countries (except that it keeps the iPhone away) because the best phones allways come to the worst networks.

It's a little silly that apple makes you spend so much money on a product and then TELLS you wich network you get, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to have a Sony DVD machine to play it?

Or to put it another way, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to live in the USA and have a USA specific DVD machine to play it?

swagi
Sep 25, 2007, 02:22 AM
I suppose you've never heard of this thing called "a threat" before, huh?

<rant>
I think it's rather arrogant to give Apple a bad credit for this (calling them threatening you, whine about your hacked phone being blown up). Maybe we could return to the usual mood: There is nothing like a free lunch!

Sorry to all those Apple fanatics, that are so into their iPhone-addiction, that they even import it and hack it to use it. But you knew, what you were doing. And you also have to admit: Shame as it may be, you knew you had to pay a price to own your precious!

On a lesser scale this usually happens with every Software Update you apply to Mac OS X. Suddenly Shapeshifter, Safari addons and the like won't work. Sometimes your system is rendered so crash-prone, that it is barely functional. But OS X hacks aren't a cat and mouse game, because they don't mean anything to Apple.

People, wake up, having hacked iPhones in the wild means losing money to Apple! And for me as a shareholder, and maybe later down the road an owner of an official fully supported iPhone with contract, it is a matter of justice that you *gasp* UNLEGIT IPHONE USERS get screwed.
</rant>

boeingair
Sep 25, 2007, 02:43 AM
There is absolutely no reason for any kind of unhappiness.

It is no big secret that Apple only supports iPhone use with AT&T. If you choose to do otherwise, it is at your own risk, and unsupported by Apple.

Expecting anything else is just silly--it's as simple as that.

NewtypeCJ
Sep 25, 2007, 02:44 AM
Apples and oranges. The iPod Touch isn't a PHONE device restricted to a specific carrier, so who needs to unlock it? There isn't a need.

Both devices need to be jailbroken to get applications onto them, and that is a step in unlocking the iPhone. No jailbreak, no unlock. So if the security on the new iPhone firmware is similar to that on the Touch, you're not going to see the hackers just break down the walls in 48 hours, as they've been working on jailbreaking the Touch--unsuccessfully--for nearly two weeks.

So anyone who unlocks will be stuck at 1.0.2 for more than the 48 hours the poster I was replying to was theorizing.

Analog Kid
Sep 25, 2007, 02:59 AM
Ha. I'm anti-unlocking and even I don't believe that. Anybody wonder why it's *all* the unlock software and methods, but *none* of the third-party applications and installer hacks that have "damaged the iPhone's software". Note, damaged to the point that it *cannot ever be restored*?!?!?!? Please, it's intentional. Has to be. They just can't tell a customer base they'd intentionally break something to keep it locked down.
No, it doesn't have to be intentional. If you go in and muck with the low level operation of the phone, the parts that Apple is relying on for everything else to work, they can't be responsible for knowing what particular changes you made to your particular phone.

Maybe it's easier if you think of it this way-- it sounds as if the unlock hacks are messing around with the phone at the driver level. If you mess with software, and Apple updates that software, they just write over what you did. If you mess with firmware, the drivers, and Apple updates the software, all bets are off. The hardware may not behave the way Apple intended it to because you mucked with it.

This is a simple disclaimer. They're worried that people are playing at too low a level and they can't predict the results so they're telling you they can't predict the results. If the hackers did it right, and it responds to all of Apple's calls they way they expect, then the software won't know the difference and everything's fine. If they don't do it right, and it would be hard for them to since they probably didn't bother to check all the intended entry points into the firmware given rush to be first, then you've got a brick. Apple isn't going to take responsibility for what some nameless adolescent with a disassembler cooked up in their basement.

Macs have firmware too, and it is almost never updated. It is always assumed to be the same from software update to software update. When Apple does push out a firmware update it's usually wrapped in a bunch of warnings saying "don't interrupt the update process" because if you do, and the firmware gets whacked, you're screwed.

I think this is why Bootcamp was released-- so people didn't keep messing with the EFI firmware to make Windows work. They just did it for you so they could predict the results. They can't do that with the iPhone because they have contractual obligations.

DrV
Sep 25, 2007, 03:09 AM
I think it's a very fair move on Apple's part.

Weeeellll...

These discussions have been rather US-centric. The European way of thinking is a bit different.

For example, Apple cannot bring the iPhone to the shop next to me, if they do not change their business model. The local law states strict conditions under which SIM-locking is allowed:

- only for 3G phones (3G, 3.5G, 3Gturbo, etc.)
- maximum duration of the contract is 24 months
- after the 24-month period the operator has to unlock the device on customer's request, free of charge
- the price for which the phone is available without any contract has to be stated
- (etc. etc., but the remaining requirements are not so relevant)

Apple fails at two points. The iPhone has no 3G capability, and the phone is not available without being bound to an operator. Apple will probably fail in the unlocking part, as well.

While the national legislation varies between European countries, the general tendency is to emphasize transparency in pricing. Apple's business model is fine in the US where the operators concentrate on making the pricing information as opaque as possible, but they will have problems in many European countries.

The European approach has been rather effective in keeping the phone bills reasonable. In international comparisons, the countries with more open competition have lower phone costs. If I get mad at my operator, I can switch to another at very easily at no cost without changing my phone or phone number.

I can imagine the real price of the iPhone would be much more than $400, but on the other hand many people seem to use, e.g., Nokia N95 whose street price is around 500 euros ($700) excl. VAT.

So, either Apple is mainly interested only in the US market (without 3G and with binding the customer to one operator), or they will have to do some homework to be able to compete with Nokia and others.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 03:11 AM
This has been covered already. The Unlock software modifies the firmware. The other installer hacks simply copies and modifies files stored in the 4/8GB Flash.

arn

I get that. But software in flash-able firmware and software stored in flash. Tantamount to the same thing. The device is ultimately as reliant and affected by one as the other, although firmware on the iPhone is more comparable to the BIOS on a computer, in that if you mess it up, the device may not be able to boot to the point the other software gets a shot at messing it up.

So say Apple's firmware updates simply patch the existing firmware. There's the problem. The patch is incompatible with the unlock-patched firmware and will therefore brick the iPhone. But if instead patching the firmware, you just re-flashed the whole firmware with expected firmware patched, no brick. If that's the case, Apple is choosing to patch when they could re-flash the whole thing to a stable firmware. They are choosing not to do this. That's tantamount to intentionally bricking unlocked devices as they have a choice. It's not the same as devising something that discovers a phone is unlocked and then bricks it, but by choosing this method of updating the firmware this time rather than choosing a method that spares the unlocked phone it *is* tantamount to intentional.

But, typically, when you update firmware you re-flash the whole thing, anyway, so I'm not even sure why this would be an issue. Re-flash the whole thing with the new version, and other than removing anything any user has done to the firmware, nothing bad happens. Like PSP hackers: if they have hacked firmware that supports home-brew games and other non-Sony functions, and they update to Sony's version of a new firmware, it never bricks the firmware, they just lose everything they had in the hacked firmware.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 03:18 AM
See above. And all updates to iPods and iPhones include firmware updates. They just re-flash the whole firmware, not expecting anything because they blast everything with a stable version. So why would re-flashing the whole firmware to a stable firmware matter one whit in bricking the iPhone? In fact you'd be more likely to brick an iPhone with a firmware update by flashing new firmware that doesn't work with third-party software that is stored on the internal storage than you would just blasting down a clean firmware update, because they touch all of the firmware but not all of the software kept in the storage flash memory.

No, it doesn't have to be intentional. If you go in and muck with the low level operation of the phone, the parts that Apple is relying on for everything else to work, they can't be responsible for knowing what particular changes you made to your particular phone.

Maybe it's easier if you think of it this way-- it sounds as if the unlock hacks are messing around with the phone at the driver level. If you mess with software, and Apple updates that software, they just write over what you did. If you mess with firmware, the drivers, and Apple updates the software, all bets are off. The hardware may not behave the way Apple intended it to because you mucked with it.

This is a simple disclaimer. They're worried that people are playing at too low a level and they can't predict the results so they're telling you they can't predict the results. If the hackers did it right, and it responds to all of Apple's calls they way they expect, then the software won't know the difference and everything's fine. If they don't do it right, and it would be hard for them to since they probably didn't bother to check all the intended entry points into the firmware given rush to be first, then you've got a brick. Apple isn't going to take responsibility for what some nameless adolescent with a disassembler cooked up in their basement.

Macs have firmware too, and it is almost never updated. It is always assumed to be the same from software update to software update. When Apple does push out a firmware update it's usually wrapped in a bunch of warnings saying "don't interrupt the update process" because if you do, and the firmware gets whacked, you're screwed.

I think this is why Bootcamp was released-- so people didn't keep messing with the EFI firmware to make Windows work. They just did it for you so they could predict the results. They can't do that with the iPhone because they have contractual obligations.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 03:22 AM
Or to put it another way, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to live in the USA and have a USA specific DVD machine to play it?

Yeah, because people would never stand for that.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 03:34 AM
That's naive. They're telling you not to update so you won't get bricked. Your unlocked phone still works but you're feature-frozen. They're telling you late enough so that some people won't read the warning in time, or are bold and foolish enough to try anyway, and they *will* get bricked, which serves as proof Apple wasn't issuing empty threats, they were serious: unlock your iPhone and use our updates and we will brick your device.

Anybody wants to be mad, be mad at the people who released not only the unlock, but an easily used GUI version of the unlock. There are people on this team of unlock developers who are formally educated computer science professionals, some with graduate degrees, who damn well should have known better than to release their work -- certainly as it turns out quick, dirty, sloppy work that was not fail-safe -- to the public in a form that doesn't even require users savvy enough to run some terminal commands. These people using the GUI version had no idea what they were doing or what they risked, but the unlock team dumped this thing out there up for grabs, anyway.

oK Please listen

The SIM unlock hacks alter the firmware of your iPhone, this is the heart and soul of your phone.

You knew what you were doing and if you didn't, well then here is a great lesson in technology for you.

Also, if Apple wanted to sabotage your iPhone, I doubt they would release a public warning.

robPOD
Sep 25, 2007, 03:41 AM
There is going to be some angry people around......

happylittlemac
Sep 25, 2007, 03:50 AM
Sounds like a threat from Apple, I mean people buy the phone from Apple they have already paid, it's your property and there should be nothing wrong by how you decide how you want to use it.

Analog Kid
Sep 25, 2007, 03:55 AM
See above. And all updates to iPods and iPhones include firmware updates. They just re-flash the whole firmware, not expecting anything because they blast everything with a stable version. So why would re-flashing the whole firmware to a stable firmware matter one whit in bricking the iPhone? In fact you'd be more likely to brick an iPhone with a firmware update by flashing new firmware that doesn't work with third-party software that is stored on the internal storage than you would just blasting down a clean firmware update, because they touch all of the firmware but not all of the software kept in the storage flash memory.
Do you know this for sure? I'd be surprised if Apple updated the low level firmware with every software update-- it's too dangerous. When you design a product that can accept software updates, there's typically a portion you keep in a special sector of flash, that you don't erase when you update everything else. Among other things, that's the bit that tells the processor how to accept the new software (in this case it communicates with iTunes). You don't touch that because if a standard software update fails for any reason you want the lowest level parts to still work so you get a second shot at it. If things get hopelessly mangled, you do a restore and get back to where you started.

The definition of firmware, software and drivers is all kind of vague on an embedded device, so Apple may call different parts different things, but true firmware updates, in the sense I'm referring to, are usually few and far between. This isn't handled by a "restore", it's a separate operation.

It makes sense to keep the SIM handling in this same area because you don't want to risk a software update disconnecting you from your network. Since there's only one approved network, it's much safer from an engineering perspective, to just never touch that bit of code.

I haven't looked into how the unlock hacks work, specifically, but I've designed this kind of stuff before so I'm simply explaining what makes sense to me. The fact that the unlock hacks are "restore resistant" further supports my explanation.

Analog Kid
Sep 25, 2007, 03:58 AM
Sounds like a threat from Apple, I mean people buy the phone from Apple they have already paid, it's your property and there should be nothing wrong by how you decide how you want to use it.
Right. You can put sugar in your gas tank too-- it's your car after all...

Compile 'em all
Sep 25, 2007, 04:17 AM
See above. And all updates to iPods and iPhones include firmware updates. They just re-flash the whole firmware, not expecting anything because they blast everything with a stable version.

You really don't know what you are talking about. The iPhone firmware includes the basedband software. The baseband software is the embedded program on the radio chip. This program is what locks the GSM radio to the SIM card. And THIS is the one the unlock modifies.

All previous firmware updates (1.0.1 and 1.0.2) didn't include updates for the baseband because there was no need to. That is why the unlock till now is restore resistant. It is not because a feature of the unlock but because 1.0.2 doesn't unclude a baseband update.

Now that the unlock was out, Apple had to do something about it because of their agreements with AT&T. So they are releasing a new firmware version (1.1.1) that will include an update to the baseband. Updating the baseband will simply replace the modified unlocked one therefore relocking the phone.

The statement released by Apple yesterday is nothing more than a PR stunt to show AT&T that they are doing something about the unlock. They WILL update the baseband but them bricking intentionally is highly highly improbable.

MrT8064
Sep 25, 2007, 04:37 AM
Hi, if i were to get a new mac this winter with leopard, is there anyway, that pluging in my iPhone (unlocked) to my computer would render it as useless as a non-load-supporting brick?

thanks

PDE
Sep 25, 2007, 04:39 AM
You guys are brainwashed! OBVIOUSLY Apple is intentionally bricking the iPhone. They don't make any money if people use T-Mobile!

And they'll lose out on an untold number of hardware sales if they brick all the phones that have been unlocked, not to mention that many of the customers who bought - and paid full price for - the iphone will probably not come back to Apple again.

I've met several people who assumed that unlocking the iphone is like any other unlock available for other phones - permanent and harmless.

synth3tik
Sep 25, 2007, 04:59 AM
Weeeellll...

These discussions have been rather US-centric. The European way of thinking is a bit different.

For example, Apple cannot bring the iPhone to the shop next to me, if they do not change their business model. The local law states strict conditions under which SIM-locking is allowed:

- only for 3G phones (3G, 3.5G, 3Gturbo, etc.)
- maximum duration of the contract is 24 months
- after the 24-month period the operator has to unlock the device on customer's request, free of charge
- the price for which the phone is available without any contract has to be stated
- (etc. etc., but the remaining requirements are not so relevant)

Apple fails at two points. The iPhone has no 3G capability, and the phone is not available without being bound to an operator. Apple will probably fail in the unlocking part, as well.

While the national legislation varies between European countries, the general tendency is to emphasize transparency in pricing. Apple's business model is fine in the US where the operators concentrate on making the pricing information as opaque as possible, but they will have problems in many European countries.

The European approach has been rather effective in keeping the phone bills reasonable. In international comparisons, the countries with more open competition have lower phone costs. If I get mad at my operator, I can switch to another at very easily at no cost without changing my phone or phone number.

I can imagine the real price of the iPhone would be much more than $400, but on the other hand many people seem to use, e.g., Nokia N95 whose street price is around 500 euros ($700) excl. VAT.

So, either Apple is mainly interested only in the US market (without 3G and with binding the customer to one operator), or they will have to do some homework to be able to compete with Nokia and others.


The EU also sues companies for being successful.

iliketomac
Sep 25, 2007, 05:01 AM
Just like the hundreds (or thousands of complaint letters) to Steve Jobs about the iPhone price drop 2-months after release -- if enough (thousands and thousands) people do the same complaining about this iPhone unlocking situation, do you think he may respond favorably? I mean c'mon the iPhone doesn't revolve around the Apple-AT&T partnership alone since there are millons of interested potential iPhone buyers too all over the world especially if it can remain unlocked in their perspective countries... realistically, the iPhone is a worldwide attraction! :rolleyes:

Dagless
Sep 25, 2007, 05:02 AM
You guys are brainwashed! OBVIOUSLY Apple is intentionally bricking the iPhone. They don't make any money if people use T-Mobile!

Apple do make money, it'd be AT&T not making the money.


They are doing the right thing. The best situation would be for Apple to release a sim-free iPhone. But since there are demands for a stellar service (visual voicemail, unlimited data) then it isn't going to sit pretty on other networks if Apple want you to get the most from this device.

And frankly I like that. For too long I've had phones that can do everything under the sun, but locked out as all networks have different services.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 06:08 AM
All the most popular unlock hack does, and possibly all the unlock hacks, is completely overwrite the baseband data. it's down and dirty, shotgun approach. You have to use something like Jailbreak to even do the unlock, but that's incidental, really. Frankly, it seems with some of the comp. sci. academic credentials of the people who created the unlocks, they should have known it was not only dangerous but probably doomed from the start, even had Apple not aggressively responded.

I totally agree with you that how Apple and we are defining the term "firmware" is highly relevant and makes a big difference on what exactly they are doing. I assume we agree that firmware "patches" and "updates" are technically misnomers as no one usually goes in and writes over little areas of firmware flash here and there, but rather re-flashes the whole puppy. But a sacrosanct segment of firmware containing, for analogy's sake, the "iPhone BIOS" would not be touched by a complete re-flash of the segment of firmware handling mid-to-high level operations. The GSM baseband and various other virtually never touched -- may have never really been expected to *ever* be touched unless the carrier changed something on their network -- low-level settings and the rock-bottom bootstrap code would reside here, and indeed "walling off" these things from even Apple's own firmware re-flashes would be a good design decision. That way the designers themselves don't accidentally brick their own device with errant update code because they don't ever touch the area that would brick it.

Also in favor of your argument for a firmware Holy Ground is the fact the restores, which are full firmware re-flashes *do not* relock. Excellent point. Further in favor of your point -- oh hey, don't stop me from dismantling my own case for you to save you the trouble -- is that the rushed-up relocking attempts that hit last night aren't consistently working, meaning trying to rewrite the old baseband data is failing (some people are reporting no relock, some are reporting bricks). Meaning Apple had to work out a way to rewrite the proper baseband data that doesn't fail because they intend to relock. And it's possible that whatever you have to do overwrite the baseband data after it's already been overwritten will brick the phone. Someone mentioned that maybe there's an upper limit on the number of times you can overwrite the baseband. Like the SuperDrive in my Mac laptop: I can set and change the region code, held presumably in a writable firmware segment -- there's even a legitimate Apple-provided way to do this -- but I may do it only so many times, I think between 3 and 5, before the last one I set, that's my region code on that drive forever. It's an artificial limit, of course, to prevent SuperDrives from becoming essentially region-free DVD video players. Perhaps the upper limit on baseband overwrites is 1. And unlike the DVD drive, which won't brick, just won't change regions again over the limit, there's no fail-safe built in for exceeding the limit: it just bricks, maybe because you smash the bootstrap code doing the second baseband overwrite. (Also, by "permanently inoperable" Apple may not mean it will outright brick, that it won't iPod or Safari, but that it will never work on a GSM network again, even AT&T's; but if relocking requires legitimate reactivation and since you'll never get on a GSM network again, and we all know all iPhone's features require activation, it's tantamount to bricking). A low limit would explain why overwriting the baseband to unlock the iPhone doesn't brick it, but Apple overwriting the baseband to relock it does brick it.

There's a potential nasty future problem with this concept, though. If the upper limit is 1, then if Apple with this update overwrites the baseband, even my unhacked, never unlocked, AT&T iPhone-contracted iPhone will have its baseband overwritten. Should Apple ever need to do this relock again, they will have burned my single baseband overwrite this time, and they'll brick my legit iPhone the next time they do it. Of course they can always examine the baseband and if it passes muster, they skip the part of the update that performs the overwrite. Probably this time around a simple checksum on the baseband data would do it. In the future, someone will probably figure out how to unlock with a baseband overwrite that equals Apple's proper baseband data checksum, so they'll have to come up with another way to verify that it's legit baseband data.

The only argument I have right now for my case is the iPod firmware updates -- uninterrupted, perfectly executed updates -- used to brick some iPods, indicating that Apple was indeed blasting all the firmware and if some unknown, possibly random hitch occurred during the process there was not a bit of stable bootstrap code in firmware left to boot the iPod to a stable enough condition to at least be recognized for a restore. But this has seemed to have stopped happening by at least the video iPods, so that argues for your case that they've segmented a hands-off region of firmware that updates don't touch.

Anyway, it's an intriguing mystery.

Do you know this for sure? I'd be surprised if Apple updated the low level firmware with every software update-- it's too dangerous. When you design a product that can accept software updates, there's typically a portion you keep in a special sector of flash, that you don't erase when you update everything else. Among other things, that's the bit that tells the processor how to accept the new software (in this case it communicates with iTunes). You don't touch that because if a standard software update fails for any reason you want the lowest level parts to still work so you get a second shot at it. If things get hopelessly mangled, you do a restore and get back to where you started.

The definition of firmware, software and drivers is all kind of vague on an embedded device, so Apple may call different parts different things, but true firmware updates, in the sense I'm referring to, are usually few and far between. This isn't handled by a "restore", it's a separate operation.

It makes sense to keep the SIM handling in this same area because you don't want to risk a software update disconnecting you from your network. Since there's only one approved network, it's much safer from an engineering perspective, to just never touch that bit of code.

I haven't looked into how the unlock hacks work, specifically, but I've designed this kind of stuff before so I'm simply explaining what makes sense to me. The fact that the unlock hacks are "restore resistant" further supports my explanation.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 06:19 AM
PDE, make an argument, would you? I'd be glad to debate valid points. And you've totally mistaken that I'm happy some people's iPhones might be "rendered inoperable". I think it's a bad situation all around. And I definitely think that while the unlock hackers are not accountable to savvy users who understand the risks, they certainly are ethically accountable for their decision to release the unlock to casual users who have no idea the ramifications of performing the unlock.

georgeoommen
Sep 25, 2007, 06:27 AM
Weeeellll...

These discussions have been rather US-centric. The European way of thinking is a bit different.

For example, Apple cannot bring the iPhone to the shop next to me, if they do not change their business model. The local law states strict conditions under which SIM-locking is allowed:

- only for 3G phones (3G, 3.5G, 3Gturbo, etc.)
- maximum duration of the contract is 24 months
- after the 24-month period the operator has to unlock the device on customer's request, free of charge
- the price for which the phone is available without any contract has to be stated
- (etc. etc., but the remaining requirements are not so relevant)

Would you have a source for this info? Not that I'm doubting its legitimacy, but I just want to know if such laws are in place in the UK as well and if so the exact details of it. There's most likely some clause in there that Apple will be able to exploit that allows them to continue with their current business model with respect to the iphone.

superga
Sep 25, 2007, 06:32 AM
About to head to the US this weekend (from UK), was gonna get an iPhone. Few Q's ...

If I get one now, what is the likely firmware on the phone? 1.0.2? Seems very unlikely it would have 1.1.1

If it's pre 1.0.2, can I update the fw to 1.0.2 if apple have pushed out 1.1.1 by the weekend?

Happy to stick with 1.0.2 if 1.1.1 isn't broken/for a while ...

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 06:47 AM
See my response to AnalogKid. It clarifies my understanding of the updates and the business of flashing the firmware. I do fully understand the concepts of embedded radio software which you discuss, but I did forget, in the context of Apple products, with a device of this kind, which must operate at a basic level on a radio network, you're more likely, more wise, not to touch some very basic things than with other kinds of devices where you just blast the whole firmware. But with my experience with Airport Basestation, really quite similar, I should have remembers as with those devices you can seriously waffle the firmware, but it's impossible to kill the whole dog so that you can't get it back going through a Byzantine but fail-safe high-level firmware restore procedure (with Basestations, there's always enough stable firmware there to get at it via direct ethernet connection to a Mac over copper). Anyway, I forgot the context.

I think "intentional" is a highly relative term in this case. Barring a hard, low upper limit to baseband overwrites like I mentioned in the response to AnalogKid, or something similar, it's a trivial matter for Apple to figure out how to relock the iPhones without bricking them -- I would say it's not so complex that it would matter in terms of development time and cost. So, I think it's defensible -- again barring something they just can't get around -- to call an update that collaterally bricks unlocks iPhones because they didn't work around that as tantamount to intentional. As an analogy, it's kind of like negligent homicide felonies, as opposed to misdemeanor homicide laws. You didn't mean to kill the person, it was not your plan to kill the person, but you did kill the person by doing something dangerous which you could have easily avoided by being more careful, so it's considered intentional, in law, felonies tend to require intent, and you are charged with a felony criminal count.

So if by intentional we mean, wrote some special code to brick an unlocked iPhone, probably not. But if by intentional we mean could have avoided it when it would have been an easy, cheap thing to avoid while still relocking, then it is indeed intentionally bricking unlocked iPhones.

You really don't know what you are talking about. The iPhone firmware includes the basedband software. The baseband software is the embedded program on the radio chip. This program is what locks the GSM radio to the SIM card. And THIS is the one the unlock modifies.

All previous firmware updates (1.0.1 and 1.0.2) didn't include updates for the baseband because there was no need to. That is why the unlock till now is restore resistant. It is not because a feature of the unlock but because 1.0.2 doesn't unclude a baseband update.

Now that the unlock was out, Apple had to do something about it because of their agreements with AT&T. So they are releasing a new firmware version (1.1.1) that will include an update to the baseband. Updating the baseband will simply replace the modified unlocked one therefore relocking the phone.

The statement released by Apple yesterday is nothing more than a PR stunt to show AT&T that they are doing something about the unlock. They WILL update the baseband but them bricking intentionally is highly highly improbable.

Compile 'em all
Sep 25, 2007, 06:52 AM
Should Apple ever need to do this relock again, they will have burned my single baseband overwrite this time, and they'll brick my legit iPhone the next time they do it.

Geez dude. So your point is that the hackers are bad because if they hadn't done what they did, you wouldn't have to update you baseband.

If anything, you should be grateful that these guys found out those holes in the firmware which Apple is now patching. This is like complaining about security patches provided for OS X because some researchers discovered a vulnerability in the mach kernel. After all, if they didn't try discovering problems in OS X, you wouldn't need to install anything :rolleyes:.

The fact is, after this new firmware is out, you should have a more secure and stable phone than the one you had before.

DeathChill
Sep 25, 2007, 06:53 AM
I get that. But software in flash-able firmware and software stored in flash. Tantamount to the same thing. The device is ultimately as reliant and affected by one as the other, although firmware on the iPhone is more comparable to the BIOS on a computer, in that if you mess it up, the device may not be able to boot to the point the other software gets a shot at messing it up.

So say Apple's firmware updates simply patch the existing firmware. There's the problem. The patch is incompatible with the unlock-patched firmware and will therefore brick the iPhone. But if instead patching the firmware, you just re-flashed the whole firmware with expected firmware patched, no brick. If that's the case, Apple is choosing to patch when they could re-flash the whole thing to a stable firmware. They are choosing not to do this. That's tantamount to intentionally bricking unlocked devices as they have a choice. It's not the same as devising something that discovers a phone is unlocked and then bricks it, but by choosing this method of updating the firmware this time rather than choosing a method that spares the unlocked phone it *is* tantamount to intentional.

But, typically, when you update firmware you re-flash the whole thing, anyway, so I'm not even sure why this would be an issue. Re-flash the whole thing with the new version, and other than removing anything any user has done to the firmware, nothing bad happens. Like PSP hackers: if they have hacked firmware that supports home-brew games and other non-Sony functions, and they update to Sony's version of a new firmware, it never bricks the firmware, they just lose everything they had in the hacked firmware.

This is exactly what I was saying in the last thread. It appears if Apple is just patching the parts of the firmware rather then just reflashing it. The ONLY reasoning behind this that I can think of is so that it messes up unlocked iPhones as the previous firmware updates just reflashed the firmware.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is intentional. Maybe not intentional in the fact to brick phones, but intentional so that everyone is terrified to do any sort of hacking as they know Apple is addressing its updates specifically so that it will brick unlocked iPhones.

EDIT: As for saying that Apple rarely updates the baseband and hasn't yet, you're wrong. 1.0.1 updated the baseband.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 06:55 AM
Would you have a source for this info? Not that I'm doubting its legitimacy, but I just want to know if such laws are in place in the UK as well and if so the exact details of it. There's most likely some clause in there that Apple will be able to exploit that allows them to continue with their current business model with respect to the iphone.

George,

Those do sound like actual mobile phone laws in some Scandinavian countries. They are probably more or less accurate. Here's what I know about UK mobile phone unlocking laws:

You can legally lock a phone to a carrier for a contract term not to exceed 18 months. But, after six months of contract fulfillment by customer, carrier must at customer's request unlock said phone. But, more buts, they can charge a "reasonable" fee for the unlock, a "reasonable" fee I've heard can be as high as 50 or 60 quid, so reasonable maybe being not so cheap, reasonable to the carrier, not the customer. And, another but: But this unlocking does not terminate the contract at the time nor does it allow the customer to terminate the contract early; the customer must still fulfill the terms of the contract, that is paying on the contract for 12 more months or paying an early cancellation fee if there is such a provision for allowable early cancellation. Last but: But after six months of locked contract service, it would allow you if you say went to Spain for a couple weeks holiday, to pop in a local SIM and use a local, cheaper carrier without paying your UK carrier for international roaming.

Compile 'em all
Sep 25, 2007, 06:57 AM
This is exactly what I was saying in the last thread. It appears if Apple is just patching the parts of the firmware rather then just reflashing it.


Is that even possible? I highly doubt this is possible, to patch just part of the firmware. I think the clean baseband will simply overwrite the previous one.

DeathChill
Sep 25, 2007, 06:59 AM
Is that even possible? I highly doubt this is possible, to patch just part of the firmware. I think the clean baseband will simply overwrite the previous one.

Well, it's what the unlock does. It patches pieces of the baseband.

That's our point: if Apple were simply issuing a new baseband then the hacked one would be overwritten and not hurt your phone at all. However, Apple is saying updating will brick your iPhone and the only way that would happen is if Apple simply patched the firmware rather then did a clean update like any other company normally would.

Compile 'em all
Sep 25, 2007, 07:01 AM
Well, it's what the unlock does. It patches pieces of the baseband.


I think the unlock completely overwrites the original baseband. But you are right, it depends on what Apple will do...either patch the baseband or completely overwrite it. We will see today hopefully.

CJD2112
Sep 25, 2007, 07:07 AM
Both devices need to be jailbroken to get applications onto them, and that is a step in unlocking the iPhone. No jailbreak, no unlock. So if the security on the new iPhone firmware is similar to that on the Touch, you're not going to see the hackers just break down the walls in 48 hours, as they've been working on jailbreaking the Touch--unsuccessfully--for nearly two weeks.

So anyone who unlocks will be stuck at 1.0.2 for more than the 48 hours the poster I was replying to was theorizing.

1iFuntastic 3.0.5 doesn't "jailbreak" the phone, it "unshackles" it, which is an entirely different process. According to Apple, adding third party apps, ringtones and pictures won't cause the "bricking", but unlocking the iPhone by modifying the FIRMWARE will, so yes, :apple:'s and oranges. Besides, the iPod Touch hasn't been released to all Apple locations yet, so a lot of people haven't been able to purchase one for testing.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 07:11 AM
Yeah, Chill, that's what I mean by intentional, too. Not that they wrote some SuperBricker code all special for the updates, but intentional in that they are not avoiding bricking when it would be an easy thing, a thing that would cost them perhaps nothing in engineering time or cost because they already know how to do it from designing the iPhone software, to relock but avoid bricking. Intent by negligence. As I mentioned above, a concept more familiar in criminal law than consumer disputes, but still a pretty common concept.

(Oh, I thought I'd tack this on here due to various people's comments -- no, not yours, DeathChill. Although I am against unlocking for myself, I DO NOT THINK YOU HAVE COMMITTED SOME VENIAL SIN BY UNLOCKING YOUR IPHONE AND I AM NOT HAPPY THAT YOU MAY BE BRICKED OR FEATURE-FROZEN! I was chuffed that unlocking might be holding up my feature updates, but not to the point I'd wish you lose hundreds of dollars over it. Thank you. I think my approach would be to give unlockers a chance to come back to the fold. I'm sure Jobs and Apple considered this, but decided it was not harsh enough to put a big concrete lid on future unlocking. As you know, Jobs has a private jet. As you may not know, I do not have a private jet. From a purely business perspective, Jobs may be right on this one. Now I do have a rough opinion of some of the unlock developers who have every reason to have known better to unleash these things on a unsuspecting public.)

This is exactly what I was saying in the last thread. It appears if Apple is just patching the parts of the firmware rather then just reflashing it. The ONLY reasoning behind this that I can think of is so that it messes up unlocked iPhones as the previous firmware updates just reflashed the firmware.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is intentional. Maybe not intentional in the fact to brick phones, but intentional so that everyone is terrified to do any sort of hacking as they know Apple is addressing its updates specifically so that it will brick unlocked iPhones.

EDIT: As for saying that Apple rarely updates the baseband and hasn't yet, you're wrong. 1.0.1 updated the baseband.

PDE
Sep 25, 2007, 07:14 AM
The EU also sues companies for being successful.

That's a very mature, nuanced way at looking at. Read the article on EU regulation in the latest Economist to get a good feel for the fundamental philosophical difference between the EU and US in terms of regulation: the U.S. cost-benefit analysis vs the EU precautionary model in which the burden of proof is on the company to show that something is not dangerous or damaging. In the U.S., companies are always given the benefit of the doubt and can get away with murder (sometimes literally, as in the case with the security companies in Iraq) without consequences.

Thank goodness for the EU - with its huge population, it'll keep a check on the U.S. and force U.S. manufacturers to comply with basic regulations that ensure protection of consumers.

georgeoommen
Sep 25, 2007, 07:15 AM
George,

Those do sound like actual mobile phone laws in some Scandinavian countries. They are probably more or less accurate. Here's what I know about UK mobile phone unlocking laws:

You can legally lock a phone to a carrier for a contract term not to exceed 18 months. But, after six months of contract fulfillment by customer, carrier must at customer's request unlock said phone. But, more buts, they can charge a "reasonable" fee for the unlock, a "reasonable" fee I've heard can be as high as 50 or 60 quid, so reasonable maybe being not so cheap, reasonable to the carrier, not the customer. And, another but: But this unlocking does not terminate the contract at the time nor does it allow the customer to terminate the contract early; the customer must still fulfill the terms of the contract, that is paying on the contract for 12 more months or paying an early cancellation fee if there is such a provision for allowable early cancellation. Last but: But after six months of locked contract service, it would allow you if you say went to Spain for a couple weeks holiday, to pop in a local SIM and use a local, cheaper carrier without paying your UK carrier for international roaming.

Thanks Sanford, that was exactly the info i was looking for. I've been going through the OfCOM website as well and the info i found there is pretty much the same as what you say. I'm happy to tie myself down to one of the O2 contracts, probably the 45 quid one, but I have to be certain that I'm not forced to use international roaming for when i go abroad. Probably will wait out till early 2008 to see if O2/Apple are indeed going through with these "legal" unlocks before I get my iphone.

CJD2112
Sep 25, 2007, 07:18 AM
Sounds like a threat from Apple, I mean people buy the phone from Apple they have already paid, it's your property and there should be nothing wrong by how you decide how you want to use it.

Agreed. It's like buying a car but being told you can only drive it in certain states, and if you venture off into other states not listed as appropriate, we'll seize your engine.

Of course, there will be individuals caught up in "group think" who believe that by signing a contract you agree to terms and conditions on how to use a device that you paid full price. I find this antithetical to our individual rights as consumers. Europe has the right idea, they are looking out for the best interests of the company AND consumer by limiting how much power a company has in dictating lengths of contracts (if any) and deeming locked phones illegal (I'm not certain if that law applies to all countries in the European Union or just a few, so forgive my ignorance).

It seems the main complaint here isn't with Apple, but with the U.S. "free" market (and I use "free" loosely). As a consumer, I find it very sad that any company is allowed to dictate and control a device that is paid in full by the consumer, and thus owned by the consumer. I am hard pressed to think of any other device that is in a similar vein as the iPhone in those regards (and computers don't count there, any one can pretty much use their PC or Mac in any manner they see fit, outside of pirating software).

CJD2112
Sep 25, 2007, 07:20 AM
That's a very mature, nuanced way at looking at. Read the article on EU regulation in the latest Economist to get a good feel for the fundamental philosophical difference between the EU and US in terms of regulation: the U.S. cost-benefit analysis vs the EU precautionary model in which the burden of proof is on the company to show that something is not dangerous or damaging. In the U.S., companies are always given the benefit of the doubt and can get away with murder (sometimes literally, as in the case with the security companies in Iraq) without consequences.

Thank goodness for the EU - with its huge population, it'll keep a check on the U.S. and force U.S. manufacturers to comply with basic regulations that ensure protection of consumers.

Exactly. Enron any one? :o In the U.S., company's are given the "benefit of the doubt" over consumers, and many times consumers get screwed by the leeway corporations have in handling their products and services. At least it seems in the E.U., both the company AND the consumers are given near equal treatment; one isn't more important than the other and it would be very difficult for one to exist without the other.

The North American concept of locking phones and consumers to 1-2 year "agreements" with early cancellation fees (as if it costs that much for a company to terminate service) is ludicrous. I'm tired of us not questioning the business tactics of these corporations that don't truly have our best interests at heart (yes, I am aware that companies' objectives are to make money first and foremost, but it seems increasingly more at the price of the consumers' rights). Defending such tactics as "you knew what you were getting into when you signed that agreement" is erroneous, as we shouldn't have to be forced to sign any agreement with a product we pay full price to own. Discounted phones with contract/service are supposed to be an incentive for the consumer to sign with that carrier, thus anyone can go into an ATT, T-Mobile, Sprint, and/or Verizon store and buy a phone full price, sign NO contract and walk out. I've done it a few times. However, getting the phone at a lower price is possible by signing a binding service agreement, which means a guaranteed 12-24 month service contract and/or $175 early termination of services fee. I find that all this applies to the iPhone, a device that doesn't have a discounted service agreement, but instead is offered only at full price and only being locked into one specific US carrier, something that is antithetical to the U.S. "free market".

Mackan
Sep 25, 2007, 07:42 AM
Apple went the wrong way with the iPhone. It should have been sold unlocked, free of contracts. Why didn't they chose this road? Were they afraid that the iPhone was not strong enough, and needed support by bigger cellphone carriers to succeed? Is it pure greed? Now it is only exclusive to people prepared to sign a long term contract, in specific countries. Not to mention the lack of support for 3rd party applications. So many people that like the iPhone, but can't really have any joy with it. By locking themselves up to certain carriers, they are also forced to deal with these ridiculous things like intentionally bricking people's unlocked iPhones. Just trouble for you Apple, why don't you get it?

DrV
Sep 25, 2007, 07:44 AM
Would you have a source for this info? Not that I'm doubting its legitimacy, but I just want to know if such laws are in place in the UK as well and if so the exact details of it. There's most likely some clause in there that Apple will be able to exploit that allows them to continue with their current business model with respect to the iphone.

I really know nothing about the UK laws. The conditions I quoted are mainly from the Finnish Communications Market Act, paragraph 70, amendment 20.1.2007/26. (Sorry, I failed to find a decent English translation of that document.) As I said, the national legislation differs from one country to another, but the tendency is clear. Bundled sales are seen as an obstacle to free competition.

Actually, even the paragraph 70 is a new one, it was given in April 2006. The paragraph is temporary, i.e., if no new legislation is made, the legislation will revert to its previous form. Before April 2006 all bundled sales of GSM phones was banned. As the carriers kept saying that 3G will become more popular if the bundling is allowed, the ban was lifted temporarily for the 3G phones.

The sales of 3G phones skyrocketed immediately after the ban was lifted. However, that was only a transient phenomenon, as kids got nice phones their parents had previously refused to buy. The use and development of 3G services did not increase that much. Now the use of 3G (mainly for net access) has become more popular, but only because the data pricing is more reasonable (at the moment starting from 10 euros / mo. unlimited). So, it is not clear whether the current practice may continue in 2009. Possibly not.

The legislation seems to be watertight. Apple cannot enter our market without a 3G phone. With a 3G phone there will still be some problems (such as the pricing issue), but they may be possible to solve by some legal maneuvers.

Now, it might seem that it is quite insignificant whether Apple can enter some small markets up in the northern Europe. True, if you only look at the numbers. But if you look at the roots of GSM and the big mobile phone companies (Nokia, Ericsson), the picture changes somewhat.

There are very few signs that the European legislation would become less strict on competition issues. On the contrary, all market sectors are forced more and more open, be it telecommunications, software, or energy.

elcid
Sep 25, 2007, 07:53 AM
I can see it now. Apple "accidentally" breaking phones that are unlocked. People start balling because they knowingly compromised their phone but now its a brick. Apple issues another 100 gift card to those people to smooth things over.


All that aside, can anyone really believe that through all the lawyer mumbo-jumbo that AT&T did not tell apple that in accordance to the agreement that they have to do everything they can to stop unlocking of the iPhone?

overcast
Sep 25, 2007, 08:00 AM
Sounds like a threat from Apple, I mean people buy the phone from Apple they have already paid, it's your property and there should be nothing wrong by how you decide how you want to use it.
You DO NOT own the software on the iPhone. The ONLY thing you own is the material that the phone is made from. THAT'S IT. You are totally free to do whatever you want to the phone, go nuts. You aren't going to be tracked down by the FBI and arrested. However, if you expect Apple to support what you are doing and guarantee that their firmware works with your hacked iphone, then you've lost your marbles. You accepted an agreement purchasing the phone, this is what is REQUIRED for Apple to support you in their software updates.

Do you understand the difference now?

BlackMR2
Sep 25, 2007, 08:04 AM
ok so if the phone does get bricked by the update.... i'm assuming that the itunes features like music playback, video playback, web browsing, camera functions etc will still work but you just won't e able to make calls?

Well my 8gb iphone is on it's way here next Wednesday (down in OZ) maybe i'll just glue my sony ericson to the back of it in case it stops making calls :-)

eastcoastsurfer
Sep 25, 2007, 08:07 AM
Apple has generally been fairly closed as a company, but this year they seem to have gone off the deep end. The computer company whose products I've enjoyed for quite some time is changing. By purposefully bricking any phone which has been hacked (and yes it's on purpose I'm sure), they are showing the direction they are headed. I don't want my MBP to be the last mac I have, but if they continue in this direction I'll have to move elsewhere.

Compile 'em all
Sep 25, 2007, 08:08 AM
ok so if the phone does get bricked by the update.... i'm assuming that the itunes features like music playback, video playback, web browsing, camera functions etc will still work but you just won't e able to make calls?

Well my 8gb iphone is on it's way here next Wednesday (down in OZ) maybe i'll just glue my sony ericson to the back of it in case it stops making calls :-)

Bricked means it will not boot at all. Ain't gonna happen, so cheer up :cool:.

overcast
Sep 25, 2007, 08:08 AM
ok so if the phone does get bricked by the update.... i'm assuming that the itunes features like music playback, video playback, web browsing, camera functions etc will still work but you just won't e able to make calls?

Well my 8gb iphone is on it's way here next Wednesday (down in OZ) maybe i'll just glue my sony ericson to the back of it in case it stops making calls :-)
I don't think you understand when something like the BIOS of a computer gets corrupted. A "feature" just doesn't stop working, while the rest goes on happily.

123
Sep 25, 2007, 08:10 AM
I would rather have an operational iPhone that can be updated to 1.1.1 and wait for whatever new version of iNdependence that comes out that allows spoof activation in 1.1.1. It's constant roulette, even so, the next update may hose your iPhone. At least until my Verizon plan expires this December, knowing the 411 on 1.1.1 is crucial to me.


Currently, the iPhone is hacked and we have complete control over the software on the device. It is much easier to hack the 1.1.1 update and apply it to an unlocked (or otherwise altered) phone than to hack an updated phone again as the latter requires new security holes to be found in every area to hack it again (assuming all known are patched).

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 08:10 AM
Thanks Sanford, that was exactly the info i was looking for. I've been going through the OfCOM website as well and the info i found there is pretty much the same as what you say. I'm happy to tie myself down to one of the O2 contracts, probably the 45 quid one, but I have to be certain that I'm not forced to use international roaming for when i go abroad. Probably will wait out till early 2008 to see if O2/Apple are indeed going through with these "legal" unlocks before I get my iphone.

I can't imagine how they'd get around it without running seriously afoul of UK law. Only thing I can think of is making the "reasonable" fee to unlock at six months around 400 quid. And the UK agency responsible for enforcing the unlocking regulations letting them do that. What you could do, so that you could get one earlier, is call O2 now or closer to actual on-sale date, tell them you plan on signing up on an O2 tariff for iPhone and keeping it at least through the 18-month contract period, and then ask them if they have established what the six-months unlocking fee will be for your iPhone. If they don't know by Nov. 9th, or refuse to say or discuss the fact they are required by UK law to unlock at six months, then I'd probably be skeptical and wait until the first customers hit six months and see how they're legal unlocking goes.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 08:19 AM
Currently, the iPhone is hacked and we have complete control over the software on the device. It is much easier to hack the 1.1.1 update and apply it to an unlocked (or otherwise altered) phone than to hack an updated phone again as the latter requires new security holes to be found in every area to hack it again (assuming all known are patched).

Oh and good luck with that. Mucking about in the firmware binary itself and the applying it to any iPhone sounds as brick-making as anything else.

My advice, not that anyone will listen. If you are a tinkerer who has bought or will buy multiple iPhones to keep tinkering with them, and you can afford this, you know, do whatever you want, just don't drag casual consumer-style customers down with you by releasing into the wild things they don't understand that might permanently brick their phones (no, typing "use at your own risk" a readme.txt file is not sufficient). If you've already unlocked and are technically proficient and think you can figure this out, do whatever. If you're a regular, average customer who has unlocked, hold off a long, long time on updating until the situation is known. Then if I were you, if a verified, time-tested relock is made available from somewhere that will save your phone and future problems like this, relock and sign up with AT&T. If you're a regular, average customer who has yet to unlock, or you're going to buy and then immediately unlock, for God's sake don't. It is just not worth the hassle or expense to you. If you can afford to keep buying multiple iPhones after you keep bricking them, you can probably afford dealing with AT&T's rates and optional international roaming plan rates.

pjh
Sep 25, 2007, 08:31 AM
My advice, not that anyone will listen. If you are a tinkerer who has bought or will buy multiple iPhones to keep tinkering with them, and you can afford this, you know, do whatever you want, just don't drag casual consumer-style customers down with you by releasing into the wild things they don't understand that might permanently brick their phones (no, typing "use at your own risk" a readme.txt file is not sufficient). If you've already unlocked and are technically proficient and think you can figure this out, do whatever. If you're a regular, average customer who has unlocked, hold off a long, long time on updating until the situation is known. Then if I were you, if a verified, time-tested relock is made available from somewhere that will save your phone and future problems like this, relock and sign up with AT&T. If you're a regular, average customer who has yet to unlock, or you're going to buy and then immediately unlock, for God's sake don't. It is just not worth the hassle or expense to you. If you can afford to keep buying multiple iPhones after you keep bricking them, you can probably afford dealing with AT&T's rates and optional international roaming plan rates.


Very good advice, but you're right. No one will listen and the net will be full of people screaming like hysterical 12 year old girls

hiitzDENNIS
Sep 25, 2007, 08:34 AM
Can I still unlock it on att without a data plan will that work?

hayesk
Sep 25, 2007, 08:44 AM
p.s. if microsoft came up with a phone zune and you unlocked it to use whatever carrier you wanted, do you really think gates or whoever would go out and say, "by the way, you might want to restore your icrapcoloredphonezune back to factory settings because we're about to release an update that might render it as useful as a brick."

Uhm, if MS was getting revenue from AT&T, they would absolutely say that. After all, this is the company whose activation software locked out their own legitimate Windows customers.

Compile 'em all
Sep 25, 2007, 08:46 AM
If you are a tinkerer who has bought or will buy multiple iPhones to keep tinkering with them, and you can afford this, you know, do whatever you want, just don't drag casual consumer-style customers down with you by releasing into the wild things they don't understand that might permanently brick their phones

What does that even mean? Casual consumers don't spend their time reading forums and jailbreaking their phones. A casual consumer will walk into an Apple store, buy an iPhone, let someone activate it for him on the spot, and go home. These ARE casual consumers. You, me, and people on this very forum are no casual consumers.

The unlock is for people that know what they are doing, you need to fake activate your phone. Jailbreak it. Install the BSD subsystem..etc. Tinkering with your phone has a consequence and people who do that know it. This is a price one pays for not being locked to a single carrier for a good 2 years.

Compile 'em all
Sep 25, 2007, 08:47 AM
Can I still unlock it on att without a data plan will that work?

YES.

dodonutter
Sep 25, 2007, 08:47 AM
Apple went the wrong way with the iPhone. It should have been sold unlocked, free of contracts. Why didn't they chose this road? Were they afraid that the iPhone was not strong enough, and needed support by bigger cellphone carriers to succeed? Is it pure greed? Now it is only exclusive to people prepared to sign a long term contract, in specific countries. Not to mention the lack of support for 3rd party applications. So many people that like the iPhone, but can't really have any joy with it. By locking themselves up to certain carriers, they are also forced to deal with these ridiculous things like intentionally bricking people's unlocked iPhones. Just trouble for you Apple, why don't you get it?

I've been think about this too, why didn't apple just release an unlocked phone but I think the answer is actually quite simple.

As we all know apple is a little bit obsessed with user experience and thats why they make such great products, the user experience comes first, but i think in this case that has gone too far. Apple came up with a very cool product with features like visual voicemail and a full on browser, the problem with these features, and some of the others on the iPhone is that they can't be achieved in a single piece of hardware. They need network support. Other phone manufacturers would have just scrapped the idea but apple wanted it exactly how they envisioned it and so had to lock you into a network so you got the maximum user experience.

(Anyone remember the rumours or apple creating their own network by renting from others, i think that was so they had almost complete control but they had to step down a level and are having to team up with AT&T, O2, T-mobile, etc...)

I know this specific network support doesn't apply to the safari browser as you could use that on any network but if they just let you chose your own network and tariff what percentage of average joe would go and buy a (working in english here) a £20 a month add on to their £25 a month contract just so they could get unlimited data and The Cloud wifi access? probably not that many, and that would detract from the user experience and apple can't let that happen because they are control freaks. They need for you to have exactly the experience they set out and if that means locking you into a contract so that you can use features they have kicked that network into having then so be it.

I don't think they are going 'all M$' on us as people have suggested, they just refuse to back down from their 'user experience before all else' mantra.

------------------------------------

On another completely different note i thought i'd like to add that you can argue about whether apples warning about the unlocked phones getting bricked is a threat or just a good mannered warning so you don't end up with a paper weight all you like but the upshot is that people who were umming and ahhing about whether to get an iPhone and unlock it and cope with the risks (such as myself) will now be having serious doubts about doing it and be looking at getting one of the kosher contracts with the unlimited access and wifi.

I personally am doing that as i have begun to see that the O2 contracts aren't actually that bad when the data and wifi are incorporated plus i currently pay £35pm anyway so an extra £10pm (i would get the £45 contract) for a phone that actually does everything i want it too WELL as opposed to my current Samsung phone which annoys the hell out of me sometimes (but i did get free with an ipod shuffle bundled). Also I went and played with an iPod touch in the southampton apple store yesterday and im in love with the interface so i may have to get myself an iPhone now

crisc
Sep 25, 2007, 08:50 AM
I love people who try to circumvent the standards Apple put on the Iphone, then are pissed at Apple for trying to prevent it.

It is your choice to modify the phone.

You should be happy that Apple made a phone.

If it is such a pain in the ass, then get rid of it and get another phone.

The phone has only been out only for a few months be a little patient.

hayesk
Sep 25, 2007, 08:51 AM
Agreed. It's like buying a car but being told you can only drive it in certain states, and if you venture off into other states not listed as appropriate, we'll seize your engine.

That's a good analogy, but think about how we got here. Years ago, you didn't get subsidized or free phones. You paid a lot for a phone and you then paid for service. Then the public gobbled up "free" phones with contracts and thus set the business model and relationship between carriers, manufacturers, and customers. Regardless of what Apple says, the iPhone is subsidized as long as Apple considers AT&T revenue as part of the equation, which they do.

This is not going to change until customers refuse to buy susbsidized phones and demand full unlocked phones and be willing to go without service until they get them.

It's just like people complaining about Walmart selling cheap Chinese toys and treating their employees like garbage. It's going to continue as long as people shop at Walmart.

hiitzDENNIS
Sep 25, 2007, 08:53 AM
So I don't need a nee version of independence and just activate and jailbreak the iphone and I can just use the iphone under att without a contract? Also will firmware 1.1.1 really brick my fone if I try to unlock it under att without a contract?

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 09:01 AM
So I don't need a nee version of independence and just activate and jailbreak the iphone and I can just use the iphone under att without a contract? Also will firmware 1.1.1 really brick my fone if I try to unlock it under att without a contract?

If you are concerned, do not unlock. Wait. Having an AT&T voice-only plan SIM in there will not save you. The update will look at baseband data, most likely, and if it's not the official baseband data, it will overwrite and therein lies the brick risk. The unlocks overwrite the official baseband data with hacked baseband data. Even if you are using an AT&T SIM your phone will appear as unlocked to the installer -- really, because it is only our choice you are using AT&T; it *is* unlocked.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 09:12 AM
Apple and AT&T won't do in-store activations. I'm not sure it's Apple policy, but I've seen reps of both refuse right there in the store. AT&T it is corporate store policy, I asked when they refused someone -- they don't even have a computer running iTunes in the store. To some degree this makes sense, considering the way the iPhone links with and interacts with iTunes on a PC or Mac unique to a person or family. Both stores will run a credit check and give you a pre-authorized credit approval number, but activating for you is definitely not a given.

You are certainly aware of the risks. These forums, I'd say a fair number are pretty savvy. But just judging from some of the questions I've answered only this morning, due to the iPhone lots of very casual consumers have flocked to any kind of Apple-related forums. I've seen numerous questions about using unlocked iPhones with Sprint or Verizon. Those would definitely be casual consumers.

But these forums really aren't what I'm talking about. There is one blog in particular on a network of blogs read by a lot of people, and a lot of people read blogs these days, that is regularly posting very simple step-by-step instructions on how to use at least anySIM to unlock an iPhone. Simple enough for people very technically disinclined to follow and succeed. Very tempting for people want an iPhone but have no local AT&T service, or are in a T-mobile contract, what have you, will try, succeed and have no idea what really might happen.

You hacking something and giving that over to a close group of professional or personal acquaintances whom you know to have a clue, that's one thing. People with doctoral level education in their field hacking something and publishing it on corporate-owned, mainstream-advertising-funded, for-profit blogs skimmed by perhaps millions of people every week, that's entirely another thing.

p.s. I missed your post about my saying hackers are bad because they might cause Apple to brick my legit -- you know what I mean by legit, so don't make too much of it: it's just an easy, short way to write "AT&T-iPhone-contracted, never unlocked, never hacked iPhone" -- iPhone with future updates because they overwrite my baseband. That's not what I meant. I meant if the potential bricking is due to some max limit of like 1 on baseband overwrites, then in the future it's a technical problem for Apple to find another way to relock unlocked phone as you can't just willy-nilly overwrite the baseband because phones that have never been unlocked will have had the baseband overwritten by this update. But it may be moot point now, really, as someone posted that update 1.0.1 overwrote the baseband; if there's a max limit on baseband overwrites, and they intend to overwrite everyone this time, then that number is at least 2.

What does that even mean? Casual consumers don't spend their time reading forums and jailbreaking their phones. A casual consumer will walk into an Apple store, buy an iPhone, let someone activate it for him on the spot, and go home. These ARE casual consumers. You, me, and people on this very forum are no casual consumers.

The unlock is for people that know what they are doing, you need to fake activate your phone. Jailbreak it. Install the BSD subsystem..etc. Tinkering with your phone has a consequence and people who do that know it. This is a price one pays for not being locked to a single carrier for a good 2 years.

dodonutter
Sep 25, 2007, 09:12 AM
If you are concerned, do not unlock. Wait. Having an AT&T voice-only plan SIM in there will not save you. The update will look at baseband data, most likely, and if it's not the official baseband data, it will overwrite and therein lies the brick risk. The unlocks overwrite the official baseband data with hacked baseband data. Even if you are using an AT&T SIM your phone will appear as unlocked to the installer -- really, because it is only our choice you are using AT&T; it *is* unlocked.

But if you just activate the iPhone that's not actually re-writing any Firmware or baseband data is it? Its just fooling the phone into thinking it had been activated through iTunes which is a software thing. I think what hiitzDENNIS was asking was do you have to activate then unlock the phone to use any AT&T SIM from another (ie non-iPhone) plan or do you only need the unlock part if you want to use a SIM from another carrier other than AT&T in the iPhone.

I personally would like to know this too as I am already an O2 customer so buying an iPhone on the 9th so i could activate it and stick my current SIM in would be great for me but i'm not messing with the firmware by unlocking it as there seems to be a good chance it will either brick the phone at a later date with updates OR that i would be feature frozen.

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 09:15 AM
The statement orginally released by Apple was a VERY COOL way of saying, we understand, we know what you did, you're a customer, just make sure you're straight before the update. I think this was insanely cool of Apple. They know they got hacked, but business being business, they have to do something about it and they are giving those in the proverbial "Know" a chance to play it straight before your iPhone is "Bricked".

An Apple/Steve Jobs lemming may view Apple's statement as such, but someone more grounded in reality sees it as, "We don't want you messing with out stuff, even if you paid $400. We only want the iPhone to do what we want with who we want. If you've been thinking of using one of these hacks you read about online, don't. If you've been thinking of buying an iPhone and unlocking it, tough - sign up with AT&T instead so we get our cut." All while Phil stands in the background slowly ramming his right fist into his open left palm...

ryan.axiom
Sep 25, 2007, 09:20 AM
Agreed. It's like buying a car but being told you can only drive it in certain states, and if you venture off into other states not listed as appropriate, we'll seize your engine.

Actually this seems more akin to buying a car and being told that you shouldn't run it on certain types of gas.

IMHO, whether or not Apple is "right" for keeping the phone locked to AT&T isn't really an issue. It's legal so they can do it. It's up to you to decide if you want that or not. If not, you're welcome to try to mess with things, but Apple can release updates (and seems to be) to counter such messing. Is Microsoft responsible if some obscure update to Windows causes problems with certain programs, or is incompatible with drivers for any of thousands of items of hardware causing them to be unusable?

It's been mentioned before (even in this thread), but there are other carrier specific phones also.

I do think it's wrong for uninformed users to be punished, but on the other hand, they should have educated themselves on the consequences of their actions.

twoodcc
Sep 25, 2007, 09:22 AM
I can understand where they stand.

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 09:26 AM
Or to put it another way, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to live in the USA and have a USA specific DVD machine to play it?

Nice try, but that's not at all like this.

There's a reasonable explanation that things in different countries won't work with one another. Different power supplies, different currencies, different languages. I think the poster you're replying to had a good analogy. This is like buying a fork and being told you can only use it to eat peas with. "But it can pick up other food stuffs just as well!" you say? Too bad. It was sold to you under the assumption that you'd only use it to eat peas, and if you attempt to pick up corn or beef or fish it will fall apart. Too bad!



People, wake up, having hacked iPhones in the wild means losing money to Apple! And for me as a shareholder, and maybe later down the road an owner of an official fully supported iPhone with contract, it is a matter of justice that you *gasp* UNLEGIT IPHONE USERS get screwed.
</rant>

Apple shareholders, wake up, if you've truly been reading these forums you'd see the VAST majority of the people unlocking iPhones are folks who would otherwise NOT buy an iPhone. People who can't use them in their countries (and won't be able to for a long, long time) or people who despise AT&T or O2 or whomever and would never sign a contract with them, preferring to not have an iPhone and keep using their old phone if they had to. The unlock opened up a world of profit for Apple from these customers. Would they rather not make a cent of these people, or would they rather sell them a nice, $399 piece of hardware?



It is no big secret that Apple only supports iPhone use with AT&T. If you choose to do otherwise, it is at your own risk, and unsupported by Apple.


There's a big difference between something being "unsupported" by Apple and something being consciously broken, and it seems to me that we're dealing with that latter here (which is a safe assumption until we know otherwise).

ruckus
Sep 25, 2007, 09:27 AM
this is just a good faith attempt to get the apple loyal who happen not to be at&t loyal to get their iphones back to factory settings before the next update. anyone who unlocked their phone did so knowing the risks and understood that this was inevitable. they bought it with free knowledge of a contract to legitimately use the iphone and then worked around it. time for apple to update as they would, they, i'm sure took a few of their iphones laying around and unlocked them, applied the the update and they crashed. iphones not unlocked were unscathed. user fault. iphones can be anti unlocked, be thankful someone figured that one out, so restore your iphone, update it and then go back to doing what you want but be aware you'll have to restore it again during the next major update. nature of the beast, man, nature of the beast.

p.s. if microsoft came up with a phone zune and you unlocked it to use whatever carrier you wanted, do you really think gates or whoever would go out and say, "by the way, you might want to restore your icrapcoloredphonezune back to factory settings because we're about to release an update that might render it as useful as a brick." common, you've gotta be kidding me. apple cares, they understand someone bought an iphone but didn't want the contract, but that person is an apple customer first and they're taking care of all them.

Well put.

CiscoGuru&aMac
Sep 25, 2007, 09:31 AM
An Apple/Steve Jobs lemming may view Apple's statement as such, but someone more grounded in reality sees it as, "We don't want you messing with out stuff, even if you paid $400. We only want the iPhone to do what we want with who we want. If you've been thinking of using one of these hacks you read about online, don't. If you've been thinking of buying an iPhone and unlocking it, tough - sign up with AT&T instead so we get our cut." All while Phil stands in the background slowly ramming his right fist into his open left palm...

Lame.

Mac21ND
Sep 25, 2007, 09:43 AM
Let's be honest here folks.... There is probably a very small number of the 1,000,000 iPhone's sold that have been hacked or unlocked. I'm going to guess less than 1,000 total. Most users - the one's the don't read MacRumors - don't care enough or have the technical skills needed to unlock their phone.

Also (I know this has been said by others) at least Apple is saying, "Hey, you may want to restore your phone or get rid of the hack's if possible. We're issuing an update that might mess up your phone." This is much more of a warning than you'd get from most companies. If Apple was really mean about this, they would just issue the update without any warning.

Mac21ND
Sep 25, 2007, 09:48 AM
Nice try, but that's not at all like this.

There's a reasonable explanation that things in different countries won't work with one another. Different power supplies, different currencies, different languages. I think the poster you're replying to had a good analogy. This is like buying a fork and being told you can only use it to eat peas with. "But it can pick up other food stuffs just as well!" you say? Too bad. It was sold to you under the assumption that you'd only use it to eat peas, and if you attempt to pick up corn or beef or fish it will fall apart. Too bad!





Apple shareholders, wake up, if you've truly been reading these forums you'd see the VAST majority of the people unlocking iPhones are folks who would otherwise NOT buy an iPhone. People who can't use them in their countries (and won't be able to for a long, long time) or people who despise AT&T or O2 or whomever and would never sign a contract with them, preferring to not have an iPhone and keep using their old phone if they had to. The unlock opened up a world of profit for Apple from these customers. Would they rather not make a cent of these people, or would they rather sell them a nice, $399 piece of hardware?






There's a big difference between something being "unsupported" by Apple and something being consciously broken, and it seems to me that we're dealing with that latter here (which is a safe assumption until we know otherwise).

Wow, where do I start... Actually, I'm not going to bother trying to counter what are clearly ignorant comments posted by someone ticked that he can't run an obscure version of BeOS on his iPhone. As said by another poster, "Lame."

contractcooker
Sep 25, 2007, 09:53 AM
I find it incredible how many people are NOT upset with this. And i'm not just talking about the iPhone. This indicates a state of mind in the US that is becoming more and more common everyday. "They said I can't do something, so I won't" No one really thinks about how ludicrous it is that Apple/att (or any providers for that matter) can lock you into an agreement. Without choices users lose. period. It's sad that anyone would support Apple in this action. But it's really not this that made me ashamed to be an apple fan. It was the fact that they signed on with any carrier. I love apple but I don't like some of the directions they are taking. If they continue to try and tell me what I can and cannot do I will be forced back to the PC world. Although that's not much better with TPM coming out. Technology is power and people are just starting to feel the oppression that companies and governments are capable of. Thank god for hackers. I hope they keep up.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 10:00 AM
Now that's a whole different story, the rampant contractual exclusivication -- nice made-up word, huh? -- of the American retail market. You ask me if I'd unlock my iPhone, I say no. You ask me if I have a problem with the stateside trend that makes me unable to safely unlock my iPhone, oh you bet.

I find it incredible how many people are NOT upset with this. And i'm not just talking about the iPhone. This indicates a state of mind in the US that is becoming more and more common everyday. "They said I can't do something, so I won't" No one really thinks about how ludicrous it is that Apple/att (or any providers for that matter) can lock you into an agreement. Without choices users lose. period. It's sad that anyone would support Apple in this action. But it's really not this that made me ashamed to be an apple fan. It was the fact that they signed on with any carrier. I love apple but I don't like some of the directions they are taking. If they continue to try and tell me what I can and cannot do I will be forced back to the PC world. Although that's not much better with TPM coming out. Technology is power and people are just starting to feel the oppression that companies and governments are capable of. Thank god for hackers. I hope they keep up.

question fear
Sep 25, 2007, 10:16 AM
I think Apple had a fine line to walk here. They are not obligated to support a third party unlock hack. If you live in a country where unlocking is legal AND the iphone is being offered by Apple in your country, they will probably offer a LEGAL unlocked version. With their software. Apple's not going to ask iphonesimfree to do the unlocking for them.

I think this is a complicated and sticky issue. BUT the thing to remember is that unlocking can still be illegal or not supported by the company if the company did not create the unlock. The EU can tell Apple to unlock the phone or provide a correct, legal, unlock code to carriers. Apple will obey because they have to obey. They do not have to tell Apple to support anyone's homegrown hack to unlock it; they only have to require that Apple, the company that created the phone, provide an unlock. And when Apple creates an unlock for it, it won't get broken on a firmware update.

I think that you can interpret the press release in a few ways, and certainly I understand why people responded by seeing it as threat. I see it as a cover-your-ass warning shot. If you upgrade and it works on your unlocked phone, so they scared you a little. But if it bricks phones, then you had a heads up and didn't upgrade because you knew it might not work. Saves them the headache of headlines like "NEW FIRMWARE DESTROYS IPHONES" and such.

CJD2112
Sep 25, 2007, 10:16 AM
Actually this seems more akin to buying a car and being told that you shouldn't run it on certain types of gas.

IMHO, whether or not Apple is "right" for keeping the phone locked to AT&T isn't really an issue. It's legal so they can do it. It's up to you to decide if you want that or not. If not, you're welcome to try to mess with things, but Apple can release updates (and seems to be) to counter such messing. Is Microsoft responsible if some obscure update to Windows causes problems with certain programs, or is incompatible with drivers for any of thousands of items of hardware causing them to be unusable?

It's been mentioned before (even in this thread), but there are other carrier specific phones also.

I do think it's wrong for uninformed users to be punished, but on the other hand, they should have educated themselves on the consequences of their actions.

Not so. The issue is pricing. Re-read my post. The point is when a consumer is purchasing a phone at full price, there is no contract required at the time of purchase. The consumer paid in full for the device, they own the device and can chose to do with it as they wish (i.e. use another compatible carrier or throw it off their roof for all the company cares). However, when the consumer purchases the phone at a REDUCED CONTRACT price, the consumer agrees to use the phone for the agreed contract time and with that particular carrier.

The iPhone is only offered at full price, which in the mobile industry translates to full ownership. No, it's not law (that I know of), so you are correct in stating that Apple is in their legal right. However, other posters have made excellent points that it is our fault, the U.S. consumer, for allowing these companies to dictate how we use our products. Our dollar signs and complacency has led to companies dictating how and where we use products we have purchased. E.U. has kept the interests of the company AND the consumer at heart by allowing legal right to unlocked phones and restriction of contractual usages.

Lastly, the iPhone is NOT subsidized. ATT does not pay for any part of the iPhone, the consumer pays one price, full price, for the device. By US standards set in motion by mobile service providers, this dictates that an unsubsidized unlocked phone sold at full price should be able to be used on compatible networks.

Again, it is our own fault, the US consumer, for allowing this to happen. Our dollars have gone to companies that enforce these types of restrictions. We only have ourselves to thank, and I am one of them, I bought an unsubsidized locked iPhone to be used exclusively on ATT Wireless' network.

That is all :)

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 10:23 AM
Apple do make money, it'd be AT&T not making the money.

No, you see, Apple wants to make *MORE* money. That's what's at the heart of this.



You accepted an agreement purchasing the phone, this is what is REQUIRED for Apple to support you in their software updates.

As many have pointed out, we still don't know that it was "required." Until we know for sure, I'm not going to give the $130 billion corporation the benefit of the doubt.



Regardless of what Apple says, the iPhone is subsidized as long as Apple considers AT&T revenue as part of the equation, which they do.

Then how come the iPod touch isn't $800?



Lame.

Please, shower me with more of your wisdom...



Wow, where do I start... Actually, I'm not going to bother trying to counter what are clearly ignorant comments posted by someone ticked that he can't run an obscure version of BeOS on his iPhone. As said by another poster, "Lame."

Ah, another genius. Please, enlighten me as to why my very valid points are not valid. Don't keep those no doubt witty and well-thought out rebuttals to yourself. Oh, and I don't own an iPhone, so you're not starting off your argument very well...

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 10:24 AM
Hmm. If the update is released today, I'll agree with you. It was a last minute, Do we cover ourselves with a statement or not? decision -- and the update is highly unlikely to actually brick unlocked phones; might relock them but not "render them permanently inoperable". If the update isn't released until Thursday or Friday, they are setting out to brick, and they're giving time for anyone with unlocked phones to read the news release and know they better not update or they will have serious problems.

I think Apple had a fine line to walk here. They are not obligated to support a third party unlock hack. If you live in a country where unlocking is legal AND the iphone is being offered by Apple in your country, they will probably offer a LEGAL unlocked version. With their software. Apple's not going to ask iphonesimfree to do the unlocking for them.

I think this is a complicated and sticky issue. BUT the thing to remember is that unlocking can still be illegal or not supported by the company if the company did not create the unlock. The EU can tell Apple to unlock the phone or provide a correct, legal, unlock code to carriers. Apple will obey because they have to obey. They do not have to tell Apple to support anyone's homegrown hack to unlock it; they only have to require that Apple, the company that created the phone, provide an unlock. And when Apple creates an unlock for it, it won't get broken on a firmware update.

I think that you can interpret the press release in a few ways, and certainly I understand why people responded by seeing it as threat. I see it as a cover-your-ass warning shot. If you upgrade and it works on your unlocked phone, so they scared you a little. But if it bricks phones, then you had a heads up and didn't upgrade because you knew it might not work. Saves them the headache of headlines like "NEW FIRMWARE DESTROYS IPHONES" and such.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 10:27 AM
Oh, and I don't own an iPhone, so you're not starting off your argument very well...

Irrelevant. You have to be 18 or older to enter into a legally binding contract in the United States. Apple considers iPhone to require a contract. They wouldn't have sold you one until you're 18.

ruckus
Sep 25, 2007, 10:27 AM
I
It's a little silly that apple makes you spend so much money on a product and then TELLS you wich network you get, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to have a Sony DVD machine to play it?

That is kind of taken out of context. You don't buy the product first and get told what network you have to use. You know ahead of time if you want this product, you need this network also. There are no surprises here.

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 10:28 AM
If you live in a country where unlocking is legal AND the iphone is being offered by Apple in your country, they will probably offer a LEGAL unlocked version. With their software.

I'd love to see that. If it happens, I can see the $2,000 unlocked Swedish iPhones on eBay already...

Would that make the folks defending Apple in this thread happy? I mean, it's win-win, right? Apple loses out on revenue because people *still* aren't signing up for service through their chosen providers, and instead of spending under $500 for their iPhone, Apple loyalists who'd really like an iPhone can spend 3 or 4 times that, lining the pockets of Scandinavian opportunists everywhere!

Sounds like those Apple shareholders can break out the champagne!

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 10:32 AM
Irrelevant. You have to be 18 or older to enter into a legally binding contract in the United States. Apple considers iPhone to require a contract. They wouldn't have sold you one until you're 18.

I didn't realize Larry the Cable Guy had a MacRumors account...

Docrjm
Sep 25, 2007, 10:39 AM
Or to put it another way, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to live in the USA and have a USA specific DVD machine to play it?
Actually, in the US and initially in Europe DVD's and DVD players were region locked. In europe it is now common to purchase a multi region player. In North America it is not so easy. Non region one dvd's will not play on a region one player.

CJD2112
Sep 25, 2007, 10:41 AM
I didn't realize Larry the Cable Guy had a MacRumors account...

ROFLLMAO Loves it

CJD2112
Sep 25, 2007, 10:45 AM
Actually, in the US and initially in Europe DVD's and DVD players were region locked. In europe it is now common to purchase a multi region player. In North America it is not so easy. Non region one dvd's will not play on a region one player.

Gotta love the US, we always have to be "different". Locked phones on specific carriers, the US Imperial System, driving on the "wrong side" of the road, region one dvd locking, etc. :p

I guess that's why Apple is US, "think different(ly)" ;)

question fear
Sep 25, 2007, 11:09 AM
I'd love to see that. If it happens, I can see the $2,000 unlocked Swedish iPhones on eBay already...

Would that make the folks defending Apple in this thread happy? I mean, it's win-win, right? Apple loses out on revenue because people *still* aren't signing up for service through their chosen providers, and instead of spending under $500 for their iPhone, Apple loyalists who'd really like an iPhone can spend 3 or 4 times that, lining the pockets of Scandinavian opportunists everywhere!

Sounds like those Apple shareholders can break out the champagne!

Heh, probably it would create a huge black market. But it's the only way I see them doing it, short of not selling in certain markets where it they are obligated to sell it unlocked from the start.

I realize in the EU (and in the US after 2 years?) there is a legal obligation to unlock. Those are easy, Apple will honor them upon request. Again, though, they sure as hell aren't calling the creator of iphonesimfree and asking if they can buy a license. So this whole argument centers around whether ANY unlock software is legal. And my gut says that Apple has a leg to stand on since they've never said they won't unlock a phone when ordered to by local law, just that they won't support a 3rd party.

But you are right about ebay sellers. Would love to see how high the first "legal" unlocked phone goes for on ebay...my bet is 1500 at least.

EagerDragon
Sep 25, 2007, 11:15 AM
Stop the panic:eek:

Just dont update the software until you hear otherwise. You're phone will continue to work without issue

Maybe.
The possibility may exist that you may not be able to sync it either without an update that will brick it. We just don't know how far Apple has gone.

While we may not want to think that the change is that intensive, Apple has probably been studying the unlock long enough and is also probably closing the hole that allows you to jail break.

Even if you don't brick it, you may not be able to jail break it for a while. So don't update and let us know if you can still sync your phone.

Apple is obligated by contract to block the unlocking, so this is just the start of the Tom and Jerry. We will see how extensive of a change it is and how long it takes to jaill break it again.

Time will tell, keep your old non-iPhone handy in case it breaks.

RonCarr
Sep 25, 2007, 11:16 AM
I love this! I think this is great, why would you want to go behind the backs of our beloved Apple in the first place? I switched from Verizon when i bought my iPhone a week after it was released and have not looked back since! The service is great, and that is coming from a user in a very rural area in Tennessee. So go for it Apple! Take it from them! :apple:

gnasher729
Sep 25, 2007, 11:23 AM
You think?

I bet it went more like this: created iPhone update, unlocked some of their iPhones, it worked perfectly, tweaked update, tried it again on unlocked iPhones, worked perfectly, tweaked again a few more times, tried it on unlocked iPhones, crash, BINGO! we have a release candidate!

You think? Doing something like that would be absolutely incredibly idiotically stupid. Not stupid, but stoooooopid.

Doing this unintentionally means tough luck for the customer who ends up with a brick. Just nice that Apple gave you a warning, so you could either restore whatever you did (and if that bricks your phone, then you have prove that these things can happen unintentionally), or avoid the update. Apple had no obligation to test for this case, but fortunately they did, and they have no obligation for a fix beyond this warning.

Doing this intentionally, especially if they needed several attempts, would open Apple up to court cases with likely payments of severe punitive damages. And if any employee is called up in court to testify, they will most definitely say the truth (otherwise they'd get jail time). Anyway, you can't keep something like this secret. You can only keep secrets if you have honourable employees doing honourable things. Crooks don't keep secrets, and honourable employees knowing about dodgy dealings don't keep secrets.

What is just about possible: That there is actually no problem at all, but Schiller made this statement just to annoy any unlockers.

Don.Key
Sep 25, 2007, 11:27 AM
Maybe.
The possibility may exist that you may not be able to sync it either without an update that will brick it. We just don't know how far Apple has gone..

Not being able to sync requires update to OSX software. I do not believe that the changes will be huge, perhaps some basic query of firmware version. This can be easely spoofed / hacked.

I doubt that new baseband firmware will come with new functions, so in future hacks/patches might happen on firmware *before* it is applied to iphone, so it works with old firmware.

What I do believe though is that new iphones with new firmware will be tough to hack. Thus: Enyone who wants to have simfree iphone should get one NOW, while new units are still on 1.0.2 or less.

gnasher729
Sep 25, 2007, 11:30 AM
This is exactly what I was saying in the last thread. It appears if Apple is just patching the parts of the firmware rather then just reflashing it. The ONLY reasoning behind this that I can think of is so that it messes up unlocked iPhones as the previous firmware updates just reflashed the firmware.

Is it quicker to make just the patch? Is the number of changes to the firmware limited? That would be good explanations. Any bit that gets written could go wrong, so rewriting the whole contents is much more likely to introduce problems than just making the absolutely necessary changes.

EagerDragon
Sep 25, 2007, 11:31 AM
It would be nice to have policies like this in more countries (except that it keeps the iPhone away) because the best phones allways come to the worst networks.

It's a little silly that apple makes you spend so much money on a product and then TELLS you wich network you get, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to have a Sony DVD machine to play it?

Very incorrect, Apple told you the restrictions before hand. So you purchased it knowing the requirement to active and use with AT&T for a period of 2 years. Without the hack the phone is a brick until you activate it.

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 11:32 AM
You think? Doing something like that would be absolutely incredibly idiotically stupid. Not stupid, but stoooooopid.

Doing this unintentionally means tough luck for the customer who ends up with a brick. Just nice that Apple gave you a warning, so you could either restore whatever you did (and if that bricks your phone, then you have prove that these things can happen unintentionally), or avoid the update. Apple had no obligation to test for this case, but fortunately they did, and they have no obligation for a fix beyond this warning.

Doing this intentionally, especially if they needed several attempts, would open Apple up to court cases with likely payments of severe punitive damages. And if any employee is called up in court to testify, they will most definitely say the truth (otherwise they'd get jail time). Anyway, you can't keep something like this secret. You can only keep secrets if you have honourable employees doing honourable things. Crooks don't keep secrets, and honourable employees knowing about dodgy dealings don't keep secrets.

What is just about possible: That there is actually no problem at all, but Schiller made this statement just to annoy any unlockers.


I don't know, we've heard rumors the firmware has been ready for some time, so why the delay? An intentional break would partially explain it.

Further, I don't think anyone has a leg to stand on if they would try to receive damages from Apple for breaking their hacked phone. As much as I hate to say it, it *is* Apple's product and they do say you can only use it with AT&T, so if you try and circumvent that, it's like those burglers that sue a homeowner for getting cut while climbing out the window after a break in (granted, some of those folks win!).

But I do agree with your last statment: this could very well be Phil playing mind games :)

gnasher729
Sep 25, 2007, 11:36 AM
The EU also sues companies for being successful.

Can you give any example for that? Or was it something like the USA suing Al Capone for being successful?

EagerDragon
Sep 25, 2007, 11:37 AM
Not being able to sync requires update to OSX software. I do not believe that the changes will be huge, perhaps some basic query of firmware version. This can be easely spoofed / hacked.

I doubt that new baseband firmware will come with new functions, so in future hacks/patches might happen on firmware *before* it is applied to iphone, so it works with old firmware.

What I do believe though is that new iphones with new firmware will be tough to hack. Thus: Enyone who wants to have simfree iphone should get one NOW, while new units are still on 1.0.2 or less.

You are probably right, however .... Not being able to sync only requires a change to iTunes, not OSX.
BTW new OSX is coming in 30+ days, so there maybe more changes. Anyone not installing the new version of the iphone software will not be able to use the new iPhone capabilitites and applications.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 11:45 AM
I didn't realize Larry the Cable Guy had a MacRumors account...

Indeed. But you're being kind of thick. Did you read all the foregoing information about the laws pertaining to unlocking in the countries with the most conservative anti-locking laws? Did you notice the part where the phone manufacturer is compelled to provide an unlock? They can of course provide one of their own design and are not required to support third-party unlocks. They can of course put all kinds of other stuff on those Swedish phones, stuff that no Swedish law addresses.

Stuff, that, using Sweden as an example, checks the IMEI to see if it's from a block of iPhones allocated to Sweden, and if it is, checks to make sure it's holds a SIM card activated on a Swedish carrier. If indeed it does, that Swedish unlocked iPhone may roam at will on US networks billed back through the Swedish carrier. But the Swede who comes to the States and buys a cheap pay-as-you-go month of T-Mo service and a T-Mo activated SIM card to avoid those nasty international roaming charges, the phone will lock data and voice, to everything but 911 calls as required by FCC regulations. More importantly, the American who buys a Swedish gray-market phone off eBay and tries to use it with T-Mo as carrier here is similarly locked off. Because the Swedish law requires that phone manufacturers must sell their cells (by the seashore) unlocked *in Sweden*. They are under no obligation to make the phone work in the States with just any carrier. Swedish laws governing cell phone sales stop at the Swedish border, certainly do not extend outside the EU. Making it difficult for Swedes to swap SIMs in the States or elsewhere may limit sales of the iPhone in Sweden, but Apple will have to decide what will cost them more: reduced sales due to restrictions on statutory unlocked phones outside the home country, or battling gray-market imports to markets allowing locked phones. Maybe if they can't find a way around, they skip selling iPhones in Scandinavian countries. But, hell, you can just restrict the operational bands for EU phones. It's important in the EU that phones sold there work in most EU countries, but it won't completely kill the product if you can't use it as a phone in the States. Or maybe it will, but Apple must decide how far they'll go to sell in a given market.

The fact that some, a few, countries require phones be sold completely unlocked, will not cause Apple to renege on AT&T in the States. Ultimately, Apple will judge how serious the gray-market problem is going to be and adjust their plans accordingly. It's naive to think that absolutely the moment the the iPhone goes on sale in Scandinavia -- future plans for which, personally I have not hear a peep -- it's going to break Apple's stateside business model, requiring a complete reworking, requiring them to sell the phone unlocked in the States or other countries that allow locked phones.

p.s. Seriously, who is "Larry the Cable Guy"? I suppose I could Google that name, but I don't get the reference or its connection to me.

p.p.s. And if you can, avoid getting into this thing that most first-world countries save the US are heaven on earth. In the days of dial-up Internet, while the US had many ISPs available all over the place at reasonable rates and easily accessed, Telia did everything they could to discourage people from using their phone lines for Internet connections. They put up big red somber posters "Skaffa dig Internet. Skaffa dig problem." (Get the Internet, get a problem -- not literally translated.) Then when Telia started *offering* dial-up Internet service for a price, the posters became all light and pretty, and read, simply, "Skaffa dig Internet!") Last time I was in Sweden, which has been a couple years or so, all "local" landline calls were still metered, usually by distance called. And you called a mobile phone from your home phone no matter you know it's mobile or not? *You* paid the wireless charges, not the call's recipient. How you like them apples -- pardon the pun. Don't get me wrong: I like Sweden and Swedes just fine; but it's not the perfect consumer climate, either.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 11:49 AM
Can you give any example for that? Or was it something like the USA suing Al Capone for being successful?

That's funny. Didn't sue him, unless you consider suing in the criminal sense. Indicted him on evasion of tax, and won a guilty verdict, because he buried his tracks so well they couldn't get him for murder, smuggling, armed robbery, etc., etc. Unfortunately for him, he didn't pay his tax on all that income from, ah, ambiguous sources. If he'd only paid those taxes he would have likely never been brought down.

happydude
Sep 25, 2007, 11:57 AM
Uhm, if MS was getting revenue from AT&T, they would absolutely say that. After all, this is the company whose activation software locked out their own legitimate Windows customers.

i disagree. anyone who unlocked the iphone did so to get around the at&t requirement. if M$ was in the same boat, the unlockers wouldn't suddenly just sign up for whatever carrier. what % of people now who unlocked their phone are suddenly going to say, "ok, apple, you win, i'll sign up for at&t now . . . " i'm guessing almost no one. someone will come out witha new hack within a matter of days and it'll be all good until the next/if a next firmware update comes along.

to reiterate, i'm totally against the hold apple and other telecom industries have on consumers in this country. however, anyone who bought the iphone did so knowing they had to enter into a contract to use it. never was the case otherwise. the unlockers bought an iphone with the expressed intent to get around the contract. whether you like it or not, apple has no obligation to go out of their way to support every conceivable thing hackers may or may not do to get around the rules. they updated the iphone as they do any other computing device they create and if you changed the firmware it's your issue as to whether or not you've bricked your iphone after the update.

as i said before, this is a form of civil disobedience, of which i fully support. but in doing so, you assume the risks of landing in a hot spot. protesters sometimes get arrested and pay hundreds in fines, iphone hackers likewise will sometimes get bricked and have lost hundreds in paying for a now defunct iphone. i hope apple eventually sees the demand and somehow gets out of the at&t deal, or at the very least when their partnership has run its course they don't renew it and let everyone and anyone use an iphone with who ever they want. until that utopic day arrives, the rules are contract or run the risks. petition your government if you want it otherwise.

overcast
Sep 25, 2007, 12:11 PM
I don't know, we've heard rumors the firmware has been ready for some time, so why the delay? An intentional break would partially explain it.

Oh good god, give it up with the conspiracy theories. Who did you hear from that the firmware has been ready from some time. Someones blog or forum post? lol

compuguy1088
Sep 25, 2007, 12:27 PM
This could aslo be interpreted as another "cat & mouse" challenge to the dev team (hackers, coders, etc...) ;)

Let the Mayhem Begin!

compuguy1088
Sep 25, 2007, 12:29 PM
Or to put it another way, imagine that you went out and bought a DVD but then you find out you need to live in the USA and have a USA specific DVD machine to play it?

Isn't that the way DVD's and some of the new next-get HD formats do it, by regions?

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 12:32 PM
Oh good god, give it up with the conspiracy theories. Who did you hear from that the firmware has been ready from some time. Someones blog or forum post? lol

I heard it on Facebook, so it's an end-of-story, open/shut case, F-A-C-T fact.

compuguy1088
Sep 25, 2007, 12:33 PM
You really don't know what you are talking about. The iPhone firmware includes the basedband software. The baseband software is the embedded program on the radio chip. This program is what locks the GSM radio to the SIM card. And THIS is the one the unlock modifies.

All previous firmware updates (1.0.1 and 1.0.2) didn't include updates for the baseband because there was no need to. That is why the unlock till now is restore resistant. It is not because a feature of the unlock but because 1.0.2 doesn't unclude a baseband update.

Now that the unlock was out, Apple had to do something about it because of their agreements with AT&T. So they are releasing a new firmware version (1.1.1) that will include an update to the baseband. Updating the baseband will simply replace the modified unlocked one therefore relocking the phone.

The statement released by Apple yesterday is nothing more than a PR stunt to show AT&T that they are doing something about the unlock. They WILL update the baseband but them bricking intentionally is highly highly improbable.

Then theoretically, we could if the dmg image could be decrypted, take the part of the update that is not updating the baseband, and just update the non-baseband part of the firmware, allowing the new features (if they arn't tied to the baseband update as well, ala PSP hacked firmware.

seedster2
Sep 25, 2007, 12:58 PM
Maybe.
The possibility may exist that you may not be able to sync it either without an update that will brick it. We just don't know how far Apple has gone.

While we may not want to think that the change is that intensive, Apple has probably been studying the unlock long enough and is also probably closing the hole that allows you to jail break.

Even if you don't brick it, you may not be able to jail break it for a while. So don't update and let us know if you can still sync your phone.

Apple is obligated by contract to block the unlocking, so this is just the start of the Tom and Jerry. We will see how extensive of a change it is and how long it takes to jaill break it again.

Time will tell, keep your old non-iPhone handy in case it breaks.

I think what you described will require me to update the Itunes software on my powerbook.

Apple cannot force me to update Itunes either, so I am intrigued how else they could prevent me from using my iphone as I do right now. Again i have no interest in wifi itunes so....

CJD2112
Sep 25, 2007, 01:11 PM
Oh good god, give it up with the conspiracy theories. Who did you hear from that the firmware has been ready from some time. Someones blog or forum post? lol

In his defense, the firmware for the iPhone UK has been shown to be 1.1.1, and Apple has "hinted" that the update for the US iPhone will be 1.1.1 (and if I recall correctly the iPod Touch has a version such as 1.1.1, the major update is/was to implement WiFi iTunes on the iPhone). As the WiFi iTunes is already on the iPod Touch and the iPhone UK that was demoed had software ver. 1.1.1, US iPhone owners have been wondering why they haven't received the update from Apple for some time, especially as Jobs stated it will be released very soon.

It is a very logical conclusion to draw that the delay has been partly related to ATT pressuring Apple (and Apple also wanting to keep the iPhone's on ATT service plans as Apple receives a portion of ATT's revenue) in locking down unlocked iPhones. No conspiracy there, just simple logical analysis.

DrV
Sep 25, 2007, 02:34 PM
Stuff, that, using Sweden as an example, checks the IMEI to see if it's from a block of iPhones allocated to Sweden, and if it is, checks to make sure it's holds a SIM card activated on a Swedish carrier. If indeed it does, that Swedish unlocked iPhone may roam at will on US networks billed back through the Swedish carrier. But the Swede who comes to the States and buys a cheap pay-as-you-go month of T-Mo service and a T-Mo activated SIM card to avoid those nasty international roaming charges, the phone will lock data and voice, to everything but 911 calls as required by FCC regulations.

I would not be that sure. If the phone is somehow locked to a carrier--even if it is locked to several carriers--it violates the law in some EU countries. In practice this means that if I buy a phone which does not work with another SIM card because of restrictions in the phone, the company selling the phone will be up to their lower back in alligators. (Not that the alligators would like the weather here, though.)

Of course, if a network outside of the EU does not accept my phone due to some restriction in the network, then I am out of luck. Somehow, I think the US carriers are not going to do that, as there is very little profit in refusing to serve paying customers. (Already now we have a collection of cheap Batman phones which have come with the SIM cards we are using when travelling to the States. Still I can use my own phone with those SIMs.)

It may well happen that Swedish or Finnish or whatever unlocked EU iPhones end up in eBay. But if that happens, you are stupid to buy them there. You are better off buying them from some distributor in the net. Mobile phone profits are shaved rather low, so you pay the "street price".

Personally, I think it is more likely Apple is going to ignore part of the EU. There won't be unlocked phones as Apple won't sell them to those countries. That is a pity as I would really like to buy an iPhone. I like the Apple products more than, say, Nokia products. But if their business model is against the European idea of free trade, then there is very little I can do.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 03:21 PM
Personally, I think it is more likely Apple is going to ignore part of the EU. There won't be unlocked phones as Apple won't sell them to those countries. That is a pity as I would really like to buy an iPhone. I like the Apple products more than, say, Nokia products. But if their business model is against the European idea of free trade, then there is very little I can do.

Exactly. That's why I left some flex in there. I think they may just stay out of countries that offer no locking to carriers/contracts at all requiring them to sell unlocked phones out of the box. I mean, regardless of liberal laws about locking here and favorable terms for carriers and phone manufacturers, not all the good handsets -- even some of the real stand-outs -- from Scandinavia, Japan and Korea ever make it over here.

Also Swedish law might be tested in Swedish court as to whether the existing law allowed iPhones to be sold within the country in a condition completely unlocked as to carrier within Sweden, but locked *off* other carriers in countries that allowing locking. The idea being, the iPhones would only violate Swedish law when they were out of Swedish jurisdiction; that particular nuance might be difficult to interpret. Whether Apple would find this worth testing in court, I don't know. Indeed, I kind of doubt it.

swagi
Sep 25, 2007, 03:36 PM
Apple shareholders, wake up, if you've truly been reading these forums you'd see the VAST majority of the people unlocking iPhones are folks who would otherwise NOT buy an iPhone. People who can't use them in their countries (and won't be able to for a long, long time) or people who despise AT&T or O2 or whomever and would never sign a contract with them, preferring to not have an iPhone and keep using their old phone if they had to. The unlock opened up a world of profit for Apple from these customers. Would they rather not make a cent of these people, or would they rather sell them a nice, $399 piece of hardware?


Wait a minute. So this would actually mean double the profit, if all those maniacs have a splendid iBrick and need a new phone :D:D:D

Maybe it's just me, but I can clearly accept, that Apple made the business decision to keep the iPhone closed network. It's the same with the business decision to use EDGE instead of 3G or to force you into using eMail instead of MMS (though I won't buy an iPhone alone for those reasons).

As some bad car analogy has been in this thread, I will bring my own: If you buy yourself a new sporty car, say Audi TT, then go to a store to hack the Software, so your engine has more horsepower and you can go faster, you can't blame Audi for a malfunction in the braking system that caused an accident.

And while we're at bad analogies, here comes another one: Say you're a cookie manufacturer and sell those fab iCookies. Here comes the blog, that tells you how to modify your iCookie with sweet chocolate spicing. Well, you have a new recipe for iCookie 1.1.1. and want to advertize it as the optimal snack for diabetics. Granted you should issue a press release, that 'hacked iCookies with modified icing' may not hold that promise.

Now be happy with your phone (hacked or not) and, well, act as with every other Apple Software update: Let the guinea pigs update and wait til the dust settles...that's all I've gotta say (been a FileVault-fiasco victim, luckily on a private machine). :D:D:D

Virgil-TB2
Sep 25, 2007, 03:51 PM
You guys are brainwashed! OBVIOUSLY Apple is intentionally bricking the iPhone. They don't make any money if people use T-Mobile!Who do you *really* think is telling the truth here?

Apple has consistently stuck to the facts and given everyone fair warning over these issues and now they are letting everyone know that even if you ignored all the other warnings, their testing reveals that some unlocked iPhones will be bricked by the imminent update. Sounds reasonable to me.

On the other hand, the hackers are selling unlocking software to folks with virtually no warning of what will happen, or might happen, if they use it. They are also issuing a blanket denial that the phones will be bricked, when they don't even have the software to test that yet.

They also claim (and this is absolutely ******** ridiculous) that around three hundred thousand (!) people have unlocked their iPhones, when only just over a million have even been sold? (I can't believe the rumour sites are repeating that figure all over the place today, without challenging it.) Absolutely nuts.

Which one of these groups sounds more honest to you?

I will choose to believe the reasonably well-behaved corporate monsters over the philosophically "pure" but dishonest, raving hackers any day. :)

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 04:01 PM
(been a FileVault-fiasco victim, luckily on a private machine). :D:D:D

Why does FileVault sound so familiar but I can't place it?

MacBoySeattle
Sep 25, 2007, 04:04 PM
Here's my official response to Schiller. Kiss my butt. For any move you make, there will continue to be hackers that WILL make the iPhone available for use on any network. Go deal with that reality. By the way, you're going to love the European regulators when you find out that when the technology is available inside a phone to access ANY GSM network and is being locked into one, it's considered illegal and predatory. ESPECIALLY in Europe, with full GSM coverage. Apple better shape up quick.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 04:07 PM
On the other hand, the hackers are selling unlocking software to folks with virtually no warning of what will happen, or might happen, if they use it. They are also issuing a blanket denial that the phones will be bricked, when they don't even have the software to test that yet.

Or giving away the software for free. Anyway, I almost went after one of them I'm pretty sure I could have gotten because of said individual's professional affiliations, but then I figured, you know, why bother. Being a reckless idiot usually catches up with someone on its own rather than having to fool with my karma over it.

They also claim (and this is absolutely ******** ridiculous) that around three hundred thousand (!) people have unlocked their iPhones, when only just over a million have even been sold? (I can't believe the rumour sites are repeating that figure all over the place today, without challenging it.)

Blogs repeat something without verifying the source? Dare you say! But WHAT?!?!?! 3 hundred damn freaking thousand. Try maybe a little upwards of 3,000. I could believe 10,000 at a real stretch if you count frequent international traveler's and people importing overseas. But that's just whack. Rampant self-promotion of their, ahem, "cause" without even bothering to make up a number even half believable.

shakastange
Sep 25, 2007, 04:17 PM
I think they actually said upwards of 500,000 people DOWNLOADED their software. One would think they have access to the logs of their servers and would have pretty accurate numbers.

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 04:27 PM
I think they actually said upwards of 500,000 people DOWNLOADED their software. One would think they have access to the logs of their servers and would have pretty accurate numbers.

I can imagine that. I wonder if they eliminated for duplicate IP downloads, which still wouldn't eliminate for duplicate downloads. Then they estimated *over half* of everyone who downloaded it used it. Please. There's a kind of person who hacks something to see if it can be done and then there's the kind of person who hacks something and immediately blasts it out to the general public without putting it through any kind of reasonably thorough even homebrew QA process and consideration of future bad effects, effectively saying, Look Ma! No hands. Pure egomaniacal tripe. And from what I understand reading these forums, posts from people who understand this sort of radio technology and/or are formally educated radio engineers, what they did to unlock the iPhone wasn't even hard to figure out and even easier to implement, albeit in a messy, shotgun form.

I mean the PSP hackers manage to hack PSP firmware updates fast, support all Sony-sanctioned firmware features and it doesn't brick the PSPs if a person decides not to wait to update and uses Sony's new firmware. Even though Sony, while changing course and going liberal with alternative OS installation on PS3, has been pretty strict about the idea of PSP hacking.

Unspeaked
Sep 25, 2007, 04:29 PM
Why does FileVault sound so familiar but I can't place it?

Apple's built-in encryption, introduced with OS 10.3.

Early adopters reported corrupt home directories and much data loss.

It's still kinda buggy, but not a fraction as bad as upon release...

sanford
Sep 25, 2007, 04:34 PM
Apple's built-in encryption, introduced with OS 10.3.

Early adopters reported corrupt home directories and much data loss.

It's still kinda buggy, but not a fraction as bad as upon release...

Ah, thanks. I never used it.

acrafton
Sep 25, 2007, 09:25 PM
snip

Apple is obligated by contract to block the unlocking, so this is just the start of the Tom and Jerry. We will see how extensive of a change it is and how long it takes to jaill break it again.
snip


Do you have access to the Apple/ATT contract. . .? How do you know what Apple is "obligated" to do?

Totalshock
Sep 25, 2007, 10:05 PM
I presume that, like previous iPod updates, there's nothing that will force you to update your iPhone to the new firmware? IE, when you plug it into iTunes, it won't automatically update, it'll just pop up the "Hey, there's new software available for your iPhone. Wanna install it?" window, the way it does with the iPod.

Of course, Apple will probably at some point make it so a new version of iTunes won't even talk to a pre-1.1.1 iPhone. But then, one could just avoid updating iTunes, I suppose.

Totalshock
Sep 25, 2007, 10:07 PM
Ah, thanks. I never used it.

Yeah... probably wise. VileFault is one of the least-discussed major screw-ups of Apple's recent history.

Of course, it's not like I'm a user who got hosed by trying to do FileVault on 10.3 and lost a bunch of data as a result. Nothing like that at all.

DrV
Sep 26, 2007, 01:48 AM
I mean, regardless of liberal laws about locking here and favorable terms for carriers and phone manufacturers

The carriers do benefit from the long and tight contracts, no doubt. (At the expense of consumers, most of the time.)

The situation with phone manufacturers is trickier. At least Nokia says that it is easier to sell to end users than to carriers. On the other hand, Motorola is accustomed to acting in the US market. This is quite clear from the market shares inside the US vs. rest of the world.

So, some phone manufacturers benefit, others lose. The phone manufacturers as a group are not on the winning side in the bundled sales game.

(It is interesting to note that as the bundled sales in the US seem to support the US mobile phone manufacturing industry, the regulators may not be in a hurry to do any deregulation at this point.)

The idea being, the iPhones would only violate Swedish law when they were out of Swedish jurisdiction; that particular nuance might be difficult to interpret.

I do see your point there. I could not find any accurate description of "locked" or "unlocked" in the legislation. In any case, the consumer affairs are an important area of emphasis on the union (EU) level. This means Apple would at least have to do the partial locking so that the phones work with all carriers in the EU countries. And, quite inevitably, even when doing that, the consumer groups (or authorities) would sue them, probably in several EU countries.

Doing all this would mean getting a lot of bad press. I doubt Apple would be that stupid. They either play by the rules or don't play at all. I put my money on the latter option.

Even though... I would not be that surprised if unlocked iPhones would hit the shelves here at some point. Apple may still be quite confident that a vast majority of US customers will buy a bundled one in the States. Unlocked phones trickling from some remote and dark corners of some far-away land whose name no one remembers are not a real problem.

goosnarrggh
Sep 26, 2007, 09:34 AM
Exactly. That's why I left some flex in there. I think they may just stay out of countries that offer no locking to carriers/contracts at all requiring them to sell unlocked phones out of the box. I mean, regardless of liberal laws about locking here and favorable terms for carriers and phone manufacturers, not all the good handsets -- even some of the real stand-outs -- from Scandinavia, Japan and Korea ever make it over here.

Also Swedish law might be tested in Swedish court as to whether the existing law allowed iPhones to be sold within the country in a condition completely unlocked as to carrier within Sweden, but locked *off* other carriers in countries that allowing locking. The idea being, the iPhones would only violate Swedish law when they were out of Swedish jurisdiction; that particular nuance might be difficult to interpret. Whether Apple would find this worth testing in court, I don't know. Indeed, I kind of doubt it.

I'd be curious to see how such a scheme would work.

Presumably, the iPhone itself would have to be self-regulating, since as has already been pointed out, it is extremely unlikely that every non-Swedish network carrier in the world would get together and agree to specifically identify phones bearing IMEI numbers corresponding to Swedish-sold iPhones, and restrict them from operating unless their SIMs correspond to specific Swedish carriers.

So I suppose the hypothetical Swedish iPhone would have to have an internal listing of every GSM network lawfully operating in Sweden. Initially, it would only accept SIMs from the initial exclusive agent. Following a "legitimate" unlock, it would expand slightly to only accept SIMs from any Swedish carrier.

But what if, according to some hypothetical Swedish law, the unlock procedure must not have any network affiliation at all. (To be pedantic, I'll include an example: a visitor from Nowherisa, while within Sweden's borders, must be able to pop in his foreign SIM card into any unlocked Sewdish cell phone, and be allowed to roam in Sweden subject to the terms of his foreign plan.)

Things become really muddy really fast.

vwlou89
Sep 26, 2007, 10:14 AM
But if the iPhone can be hacked to use T-Mobile, a whole different company's network, then why can't it be hacked to run AT&T Mobile Broadband instead of edge network? I'm sure the responses to this will be overwhealming and derogatory but i don't know anything about how my iPhone works, just that it does.

peharri
Sep 26, 2007, 10:20 AM
But if the iPhone can be hacked to use T-Mobile, a whole different company's network, then why can't it be hacked to run AT&T Mobile Broadband instead of edge network? I'm sure the responses to this will be overwhealming and derogatory but i don't know anything about how my iPhone works, just that it does.

The iPhone works on T-Mobile because T-Mobile uses a compatible mobile phone standard (both AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM.)

The iPhone doesn't work on AT&T Mobile Broadband because the latter is a different mobile phone standard that the iPhone doesn't support.

An analogy would be if the iCar accepted only BP Gasoline, and if "hacked" could also use Shell Gasoline. Just because that hack is possible wouldn't mean it could also use BP Diesel.

MarshallM
Sep 26, 2007, 12:17 PM
If Apple did this in the UK to disable unlocked phones I can guarantee you that is illegal and many people will come down quite hard on them here!

shakastange
Sep 26, 2007, 12:19 PM
I cannot recall another cell phone maker voiding a warranty because a phone was unlocked. Its amazing that Apple just comes into the game and boom story changes.

But here's my real issue! Since we're mostly Mac users here, we may remember that Apple has had some recalls/warranty issues in the past. I can remember the iBook logic board extension and the more recent battery recall. There is also the iBook Denmark issue. Say somewhere down the line, a design flaw is detected in the iPhone that cause locked as well as unlocked phones to fail. Would Apple still deny unlockers service?

question fear
Sep 26, 2007, 12:42 PM
If Apple did this in the UK to disable unlocked phones I can guarantee you that is illegal and many people will come down quite hard on them here!

if Apple denied an official unlock, yes. They are not obligated to support an unlock created by a software exploit. Official unlocks come from company approved codes. Apple is not legally bound to support iphonesimfree. Its absurd to argue they are. Anyone pissed about this (and I agree you 100% have a right to an unlocked phone) take it up with your local government and apple to demand an official unlock. They cannot deny that.

audiohhh
Sep 26, 2007, 02:48 PM
You guys are brainwashed! OBVIOUSLY Apple is intentionally bricking the iPhone. They don't make any money if people use T-Mobile!


ummmmmm, I think that t-mobile customers who wouldn't have bought an iphone if it was unhackable, have contributed greatly to the iphone sales figures. So, basically they make money off of T-Mobile users. Just the phone, not the service.....I assume that's what you meant

audiohhh
Sep 26, 2007, 02:51 PM
I've been think about this too, why didn't apple just release an unlocked phone but I think the answer is actually quite simple.

even simpler- visual voicemail. Apple needed a carrier to upgrade their system to make it work.

MarshallM
Sep 28, 2007, 02:48 AM
if Apple denied an official unlock, yes. They are not obligated to support an unlock created by a software exploit. Official unlocks come from company approved codes. Apple is not legally bound to support iphonesimfree. Its absurd to argue they are. Anyone pissed about this (and I agree you 100% have a right to an unlocked phone) take it up with your local government and apple to demand an official unlock. They cannot deny that.
Indeed, it is correct that iPhones are not subsidised by the network at all yes? Both UK and US.

If they're not I'm going to walk into o2, buy one and demand them to unlock it in front of me.. or go down to the county council office which is a 5 minute walk.

question fear
Sep 28, 2007, 10:09 AM
Indeed, it is correct that iPhones are not subsidised by the network at all yes? Both UK and US.

If they're not I'm going to walk into o2, buy one and demand them to unlock it in front of me.. or go down to the county council office which is a 5 minute walk.

Go for it. You'll have more luck that way than software exploits. It'll take longer but if you have consumer laws on your side you have a MUCH better chance that you'll be taken seriously.

Fluffymuff
Sep 28, 2007, 11:32 AM
Say you're a cookie manufacturer and sell those fab iCookies. Here comes the blog, that tells you how to modify your iCookie with sweet chocolate spicing. Well, you have a new recipe for iCookie 1.1.1. and want to advertize it as the optimal snack for diabetics. Granted you should issue a press release, that 'hacked iCookies with modified icing' may not hold that promise.
Whaa... :eek:

I have modded my iCookie with sweet chocolate spicing and have been advertising them as the optimal snack for diabetics.

Is this not the case? :confused::confused::confused:

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 07:20 PM
so you guys are telling me that i unlocked the phone now and now even if i restore it back to factory settings it will still be broken and im screwed or what? please tell me its going to be ok :( im worried

The only reports (if any) of irreparable damage to an unlocked phone has been from the hacking community itself. Very convenient rumor to start. The only way for that to be possible is if 1.1.1 prevented further firmware updates or restores, which is clearly not the case.

GQB
Sep 30, 2007, 07:24 PM
Maybe.


Time will tell, keep your old non-iPhone handy in case it breaks.

"in case our clever hacks broke it...", not "in case it breaks."