PDA

View Full Version : Are Unlocked iPhones Getting Bricked? At Least Some.




MacRumors
Sep 27, 2007, 04:14 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Some brave souls have tried to update their SIM Unlocked iPhones to 1.1.1 and there appear to have been mixed results.

Jonathan Seff at iPhoneCentral (http://iphone.macworld.com/2007/09/bricking_my_ipod_1.php) gave it a shot and found that his unlocked iPhone now gives an "Incorrect SIM" error. He even went to an AT&T store who gave him a new SIM and still no luck.

Meanwhile, a few anecdotal reports indicate that some people have been able to successfully upgrade their unlocked iPhone to 1.1.1 without any ill consequences.

At this early stage, we'd recommend people with Unlocked iPhones continue to wait to update while more definitive testing has been done.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/27/are-unlocked-iphones-getting-bricked-at-least-some/)



JohnnyQuest
Sep 27, 2007, 04:20 PM
If you buy an iPhone...STICK WITH ATT.

plumbingandtech
Sep 27, 2007, 04:27 PM
The upside is that if you brick your unlocked iphone (and it is you doing it not apple.) then the replacement cost is $200 cheaper....

slicecom
Sep 27, 2007, 04:47 PM
If you buy an iPhone...STICK WITH ATT.

Great advice for Americans, however many of people don't have that option.

OllyW
Sep 27, 2007, 04:52 PM
The upside is that if you brick your unlocked iphone (and it is you doing it not apple.) then the replacement cost is $200 cheaper....

And you can use your $100 voucher so it's really $300 cheaper :D

crees!
Sep 27, 2007, 04:54 PM
Great advice for Americans, however many of people don't have that option.

The phone is not available outside the U.S. at the moment. You're comment makes no sense.

Anonymous Freak
Sep 27, 2007, 05:01 PM
Hrm... I'm wondering what would happen if you ran the update on an iPhone that is unlocked, but using its original AT&T SIM. That's the case I'm in. I unlocked my iPhone so that I could throw in another SIM when I want to, but I use the original AT&T SIM almost exclusively.

Hs anyone with an unlocked iPhone tried running this update with the original AT&T SIM? (I know of one 'bricking' report that tried it with a third-party SIM, and his phone got bricked, so he put an AT&T SIM in, and it was still bricked. So I'm wondering if STARTING with the original AT&T SIM would help?

The phone is not available outside the U.S. at the moment. You're comment makes no sense.

He means that he is someone who purchased a U.S. iPhone, then unlocked it for use in another country. Therefore he has a U.S. phone, unlocked. He has no option whatsoever to use AT&T.

betoverli
Sep 27, 2007, 05:03 PM
Hrm... I'm wondering what would happen if you ran the update on an iPhone that is unlocked, but using its original AT&T SIM. That's the case I'm in. I unlocked my iPhone so that I could throw in another SIM when I want to, but I use the original AT&T SIM almost exclusively.

Hs anyone with an unlocked iPhone tried running this update with the original AT&T SIM? (I know of one 'bricking' report that tried it with a third-party SIM, and his phone got bricked, so he put an AT&T SIM in, and it was still bricked. So I'm wondering if STARTING with the original AT&T SIM would help?

No! I did it with mine... and is not working !!! AHHHH!!!!!!! Mine is bricked... for good! or, for bad? :-)



I went to At&t they switched for another one.... and still not working...

oh gosh!!

crees!
Sep 27, 2007, 05:05 PM
He means that he is someone who purchased a U.S. iPhone, then unlocked it for use in another country. Therefore he has a U.S. phone, unlocked. He has no option whatsoever to use AT&T. Fine-print (and it wasn't even in fine print) is there not to just take up space. If you void a warranty what do you expect?

PDE
Sep 27, 2007, 05:08 PM
The phone is not available outside the U.S. at the moment. You're comment makes no sense.

Apple has no problem whatsoever selling iphones to tourists who show their foreign passports as IDs (since APple requires ID) and since there is no requirement to sign up with ATT on the spot, they can simply take their phones back with them, unlock them and use them happily all over the world.

Anonymous Freak
Sep 27, 2007, 05:10 PM
No! I did it with mine... and is not working !!! AHHHH!!!!!!! Mine is bricked... for good! or, for bad? :-)



I went to At&t they switched for another one.... and still not working...

oh gosh!!

Okay, so you have an unlocked iPhone, but you tried this update with the original AT&T SIM that came with the iPhone, and it bricked your phone. Then you went to AT&T to get a new SIM, and it still doesn't work, correct?

Damn, it means I'll have to re-lock my iPhone if I want the WiFi store. (I'll probably just wait a couple days to see if there are any reports on reliable ways to get an unlocked iPhone to update, first.)

plumbingandtech
Sep 27, 2007, 05:10 PM
Apple has no problem whatsoever selling iphones to tourists who show their foreign passports as IDs (since APple requires ID) and since there is no requirement to sign up with ATT on the spot, they can simply take their phones back with them, unlock them and use them happily all over the world.

The iPhone requires ATT activation though. Always has.

Can I “unlock” iPhone and use it with another wireless carrier?
AT&T is the exclusive wireless carrier for iPhone in the United States. If you currently use another wireless carrier, you can choose to transfer your number when you activate your AT&T account.

Can I use my iPhone internationally?
iPhone is a quad-band GSM phone and will work around the world. Before you travel, make sure that international dialing and roaming are enabled through AT&T and that the places you’re going offer GSM coverage. Visit AT&T help for more information.

If a person does not read the requirements.....

betoverli
Sep 27, 2007, 05:17 PM
Okay, so you have an unlocked iPhone, but you tried this update with the original AT&T SIM that came with the iPhone, and it bricked your phone. Then you went to AT&T to get a new SIM, and it still doesn't work, correct?

Damn, it means I'll have to re-lock my iPhone if I want the WiFi store. (I'll probably just wait a couple days to see if there are any reports on reliable ways to get an unlocked iPhone to update, first.)


yes... pretty much.... i am right now on the phone with Apple.... trying to get a replacement.... WOW !

Anonymous Freak
Sep 27, 2007, 05:17 PM
The iPhone requires ATT activation though. Always has.
If a person does not read the requirements.....

Let's take at peek at your own quote:
Can I “unlock” iPhone and use it with another wireless carrier?
AT&T is the exclusive wireless carrier for iPhone in the United States.

Emphasis mine.

Apple does not state anywhere that you outright are not allowed to unlock the iPhone for use on an international carrier. Nor does it mention anywhere that activation with AT&T is required for the warranty to remain valid. Why? Because U.S. law prevents them from making such a stipulation. Once a piece of hardware has been purchased, a company may not restrict what can be done with that hardware. They can place limitations on software licenses, but not hardware uses. Therefore, they may not make a software issue cause for denying a hardware warranty.

The trick arises in wether or not unlocking is a "hardware" or a "software" modification. I don't think the status of firmware as hardware or software has ever been tested in court.

neveleven
Sep 27, 2007, 05:19 PM
The phone is not available outside the U.S. at the moment. You're comment makes no sense.

I've had an iphone in uk,(open on all networks,) for 3 weeks. Just won't update, seems really simple to me. Am I missing something? ( apart from wi fi itunes and louder speakers, but I think I'll live!

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 05:20 PM
I'm always amazed at the people that try to beat the system and then when their tawdry plans are turned upside down the squeal like crazy...."Its unfair...its unfair."

You knew the rules when you purchased the iPhone...don't cry now because they won't change the rules to suit you. You had a choice.

Well its not unfair its quite just actually.

Dave

Let's take at peek at your own quote:


Emphasis mine.

Apple does not state anywhere that you outright are not allowed to unlock the iPhone for use on an international carrier. Nor does it mention anywhere that activation with AT&T is required for the warranty to remain valid. Why? Because U.S. law prevents them from making such a stipulation. Once a piece of hardware has been purchased, a company may not restrict what can be done with that hardware. They can place limitations on software licenses, but not hardware uses. Therefore, they may not make a software issue cause for denying a hardware warranty.

The trick arises in wether or not unlocking is a "hardware" or a "software" modification. I don't think the status of firmware as hardware or software has ever been tested in court.

I would have to go back and re-read the EULA, however I think that issue was dealt with when you agreed to its terms.

Dave

betoverli
Sep 27, 2007, 05:39 PM
Well... My is bricked... but with it turned on, I can here the Mail.app getting new emails... it's like they know it was unlocked....

I am just telling this, because Apple told yesterday that it wasnt on porpose

m4c1nt05h
Sep 27, 2007, 06:01 PM
What about accountability?

They warned you about hacking your phone, told you point blank it could brick your phone if you try to update it, yet you still chose to do so ignoring their warnings and then cry when your iphone gets bricked when you tried to update your hacked iphone.

You chose to do all the above. How is apple responsible? And since when is hacking/modding hardware or software ever covered by any warranty by any company? i can't think of any.

btw, you is not literally YOU, i have no idea if you personally hacked your iphone. just trying to make a point.

swagi
Sep 27, 2007, 06:11 PM
Excuse me. AFAIK you could read it on every Mac related site: Apple issued warnings to all those, who have modified their phone. They explicitly told you, to return it to factory settings prior to the update.

I know you want 3rd party appz, but why have you chosen to be the guinea pig. Why didn't you wait, til the dust settles and the devs have an answer to the update?

So to all brick owners: You knew it, you ignored it. Bad luck!

biggerbearbrian
Sep 27, 2007, 06:13 PM
That is the exact attitude that I was referring to. This has nothing to do with "my sins" in fact I have none as related to this issue. However, everyone who tries to hack or unlock their iPhone is committing acts that were expressly forbidden by Apple prior to their purchasing the iPhone.

Where has personal integrity and personal responsibility gone in our society? More and more people now seem to live by the motto "I don't care what the rules say or what I agreed to...if I can slack off and get away with it then I'm right." When everyone adopts this attitude, we will live in a cave-man society where the meanest, toughest and most cunning survive and polite, law abiding society fails to exist.

Dave

I take issue with your assertions in this and another string concerning, particularly, iPhone unlocking. Unlocking is exempted from The DMCA. So, even though Apple doesn't like it, or condone it, it is still withing the realm of legality to unlock cell phones across the board. To quote the US Copyright office.

"The underlying activity sought to be performed by the owner of the handset is to allow the handset to do what it was manufactured to do—lawfully connect to any carrier," ... "This is a noninfringing activity by the user... The purpose of the software lock appears to be limited to restricting the owner’s use of the mobile handset to support a business model, rather than to protect access to a copyrighted work itself."

I think it can be debated that Apple dangled the bait out there by not forcing buyers to get a plan PRIOR to buying the iPhone. While hacks, and 3rd party Apps may be a much darker shade of grey; unlocking the phone is not illegal. While it surely breaks the warantee, that really is the iPhone owner's choice, as the individual buyer does in fact own the phone.

Fast Shadow
Sep 27, 2007, 06:15 PM
Hrm... I'm wondering what would happen if you ran the update on an iPhone that is unlocked, but using its original AT&T SIM. That's the case I'm in. I unlocked my iPhone so that I could throw in another SIM when I want to, but I use the original AT&T SIM almost exclusively.

Hs anyone with an unlocked iPhone tried running this update with the original AT&T SIM? (I know of one 'bricking' report that tried it with a third-party SIM, and his phone got bricked, so he put an AT&T SIM in, and it was still bricked. So I'm wondering if STARTING with the original AT&T SIM would help?



It's still not working, people have tried this. If you have an unlocked iPhone, do not apply the 1.1.1 update until some answers can be found.

Unspeaked
Sep 27, 2007, 06:15 PM
How is apple responsible?

By not releasing an unlocked iPhone in the first lace, as probably everyone except AT&T's board of directors would have liked.

That one decision caused a huge split in Apple's customer base, which has lead to the same opinion-dominated discussions we see over and over again on MacRumors (like the one in this thread that I've just contributed to) and, in turn, lead to Apple being forced to release locked phones in other countries (for fear that unlocked phones would make their way back into the States) and - as a final insult to loyal Apple customers who've salivated over this device and were ready to spend their hard earned money on it - has likely lead to it not being released *AT ALL* in countries that have the good sense to not allow companies to wield the kind of anticompetitive muscle that Apple is now flexing.

That's how.

PDE
Sep 27, 2007, 06:15 PM
Excuse me. AFAIK you could read it on every Mac related site: Apple issued warnings to all those, who have modified their phone. They explicitly told you, to return it to factory settings prior to the update.

I know you want 3rd party appz, but why have you chosen to be the guinea pig. Why didn't you wait, til the dust settles and the devs have an answer to the update?

So to all brick owners: You knew it, you ignored it. Bad luck!

I assume the 'you' is not directed at me personally? I happily - without any guilt whatsoever - unlocked my iphone so that I could use it on......ATT (very old plan that ATT refused to match today) and with foreign sims. I'm not going to update anything until it is safe, if ever. And I agree, it's a very stupid move to go against all warnings if one has an unlocked phone - very stupid.

By not releasing an unlocked iPhone in the first lace, as probably everyone except AT&T's board of directors would have liked.

That one decision caused a huge split in Apple's customer base, which has lead to the same opinion-dominated discussions we see over and over again on MacRumors (like the one in this thread that I've just contributed to) and, in turn, lead to Apple being forced to release locked phones in other countries (for fear that unlocked phones would make their way back into the States) and - as a final insult to loyal Apple customers who've salivated over this device and were ready to spend their hard earned money on it - has likely lead to it not being released *AT ALL* in countries that have the good sense to not allow companies to wield the kind of anticompetitive muscle that Apple is now flexing.

That's how.


Thank you.

Fast Shadow
Sep 27, 2007, 06:17 PM
I've also heard that legitimate GoPhone users with locked phones are getting bricked by 1.1.1 - but it's not confirmed by more than 1 source, yet.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 06:22 PM
I take issue with your assertions in this and another string concerning, particularly, iPhone unlocking. Unlocking is exempted from The DMCA. So, even though Apple doesn't like it, or condone it, it is still withing the realm of legality to unlock cell phones across the board. To quote the US Copyright office.

"The underlying activity sought to be performed by the owner of the handset is to allow the handset to do what it was manufactured to do—lawfully connect to any carrier," ... "This is a noninfringing activity by the user... The purpose of the software lock appears to be limited to restricting the owner’s use of the mobile handset to support a business model, rather than to protect access to a copyrighted work itself."

I think it can be debated that Apple dangled the bait out there by not forcing buyers to get a plan PRIOR to buying the iPhone. While hacks, and 3rd party Apps may be a much darker shade of grey; unlocking the phone is not illegal. While it surely breaks the warantee, that really is the iPhone owner's choice, as the individual buyer does in fact own the phone.

That is so much misguided logic.

From the very first time I (and you) saw any type of announcement, advertisement, flyer, brochure, web site discussion, or any other official description of the iPhone, Apple made it expressly clear that the iPhone MUST be activated with ATT to be used AT ALL for any purpose. What part of that did you not understand?

You purchased the iPhone with that understanding. Period!

What your now trying to do is find some rational for your choosing to ignore what you clearly knew when you purchased the phone.

There is NO rational excuse for anyone choosing to hack or unlock his/her iPhone. Your warrantee is now voided and you have little or no recourse. That is the penalty one must pay when on ignores an agreement made.

Dave

Analog Kid
Sep 27, 2007, 06:27 PM
He means that he is someone who purchased a U.S. iPhone, then unlocked it for use in another country. Therefore he has a U.S. phone, unlocked. He has no option whatsoever to use AT&T.
You know, I'm just waiting for the first US Visa application requesting residence because their country doesn't have an approved iPhone carrier.

On second though, maybe that would be an asylum application...
And you can use your $100 voucher so it's really $300 cheaper :D
Love to see the look on the Apple store clerks face: "I'd like to apply my $100 credit to a new iPhone because I just bricked my last one".

iJon
Sep 27, 2007, 06:31 PM
Hopefully the relock tool comes out soon. I was one of the trigger happy people and now have a bricked phone. Doesn't bother me since I've been ********** up electronics since I could use a computer. Plus I have my old phone.

Until then I guess...

jon

biggerbearbrian
Sep 27, 2007, 06:32 PM
That is so much misguided logic.

From the very first time I (and you) saw any type of announcement, advertisement, flyer, brochure, web site discussion, or any other official description of the iPhone, Apple made it expressly clear that the iPhone MUST be activated with ATT to be used AT ALL for any purpose. What part of that did you not understand?

You purchased the iPhone with that understanding. Period!

What your now trying to do is find some rational for your choosing to ignore what you clearly knew when you purchased the phone.

There is NO rational excuse for anyone choosing to hack or unlock his/her iPhone. Your warrantee is now voided and you have little or no recourse. That is the penalty one must pay when on ignores an agreement made.

Dave

Sorry Dave,

As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

I agree (and think most people who have unlocked their phones would or should) that since unlocking the phone voids the warrantee, those who have done so have to live with the consequences of it and need to live with that. I actually don't have an iPhone, yet, and am still trying to decide whether to unlock it or switch to ATT.

sharris490414
Sep 27, 2007, 06:50 PM
First off I would like to say that my :apple: iphone (4gb) was never unlocked it did however have installer.app installed and many apps from it. When I went to update it today to 1.1.1 it went into perma activate mode, went to the at&t store, obviously no help. Well anyway here is the story at about 4:00 I updated the phone and messed it up, fooled around with it till about 6:30 and relized that I had no chance of getting it back. I rushed to store about 20 mins away to get help, on the way I got a speeding ticket 95 in 55: 40mph over :( $1000 ticket (it was in a work zone). The At&t store could not help so i just bought another one.

Totals
Original iPhone: $550
Gas to store (both times): $20
Speeding Ticket: $1000
New 8gb Iphone: $450
Total: $2020 :cool:

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 07:04 PM
Sorry Dave,

As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

I agree (and think most people who have unlocked their phones would or should) that since unlocking the phone voids the warrantee, those who have done so have to live with the consequences of it and need to live with that. I actually don't have an iPhone, yet, and am still trying to decide whether to unlock it or switch to ATT.

Actually, when you agree to terms and conditions in a contract, you can actually "give away" other rights you might have had had you not stipulated to them.

I'm not a lawyer, however, I have spent literally thousands of hours over the years in court giving expert witness testimony (I'm an engineer) and have become all to familiar with how one can easily give up his/her basic rights by signing a contract (on in the case of software agreeing to a EULA).

Dave

Analog Kid
Sep 27, 2007, 07:07 PM
Once a piece of hardware has been purchased, a company may not restrict what can be done with that hardware. They can place limitations on software licenses, but not hardware uses. Therefore, they may not make a software issue cause for denying a hardware warranty.
Buy a car and reflash the engine timings, then see if the maker will cover the repairs under warranty.

Unlocking is exempted from The DMCA. So, even though Apple doesn't like it, or condone it, it is still withing the realm of legality to unlock cell phones across the board.

I think it can be debated that Apple dangled the bait out there by not forcing buyers to get a plan PRIOR to buying the iPhone. While hacks, and 3rd party Apps may be a much darker shade of grey; unlocking the phone is not illegal. While it surely breaks the warantee, that really is the iPhone owner's choice, as the individual buyer does in fact own the phone.
Where did the DMCA come into this? Apple didn't send these people to jail, they pushed out an update wrapped in "don't do this if you'd done anything unusual" warnings and bricked a few phones. Nobody said it was illegal, they said Apple isn't responsible for people using their products improperly.
By not releasing an unlocked iPhone in the first lace, as probably everyone except AT&T's board of directors would have liked.

That one decision caused a huge split in Apple's customer base, which has lead to the same opinion-dominated discussions we see over and over again on MacRumors (like the one in this thread that I've just contributed to) and, in turn, lead to Apple being forced to release locked phones in other countries (for fear that unlocked phones would make their way back into the States) and - as a final insult to loyal Apple customers who've salivated over this device and were ready to spend their hard earned money on it - has likely lead to it not being released *AT ALL* in countries that have the good sense to not allow companies to wield the kind of anticompetitive muscle that Apple is now flexing.

That's how.
As with all products, if you don't like it don't buy it. If you use something in ways the manufacturer didn't intend, understand you're taking a risk. Don't disregard everything you're told and then whine that it's Apples fault. They didn't release SDKs, the unlock was clearly a hack, they did all that could be reasonably expected to prevent this from happening.

As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

I agree (and think most people who have unlocked their phones would or should) that since unlocking the phone voids the warrantee, those who have done so have to live with the consequences of it and need to live with that. I actually don't have an iPhone, yet, and am still trying to decide whether to unlock it or switch to ATT.
Again you're throwing the law into this... I haven't seen anyone say it's illegal to unlock the iPhone. I've seen people say it's stupid, but not illegal. Why stupid? Because all expectations are that it will break the device.

Everytime a firmware update comes out, there's dozens of nervous posts asking "does the phone still work if you've done such-and-such to it?". People know what they're doing. Now the other shoe has dropped.

Maybe next week a new unlock hack will surface, and next month more phones will brick, and the week after and the month after until a way of unlocking that doesn't conflict with the updates is found.

milo
Sep 27, 2007, 07:09 PM
those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality.

Sure. But on the other hand it's not illegal for apple to retaliate by "accidentally" bricking it either. They sell a product that's intended to be used with a contract, do you honestly think they'd just sit and let that happen, not respond to it?

I don't see why anyone would be surprised by this, I'm surprised it took apple this long to start bricking phones. If you don't like the terms, just don't buy the phone.

igglepuff
Sep 27, 2007, 07:11 PM
ok, im pretty sure im going to get flamed for this post :D espcially because i jsut registered after reading teh thread.. Anyway, i'm not an apple fan boy. i love my mbp and mp, i in no way worship the ground they walk on, esp with the iphone junk they pull(wanting 10% blahblah).

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth.

Apple has not purposely bricked anyone's phone, i wish they did so i could b*tch and whine about them. Yes there's (well not bricked, but limbo) reports, which are true, it happened to my gfs. However, it seems that if you have used iphonesimfree, your phone is not an iLimbo. The girlfriend's was unlocked with anysim, and is an iLimbo now - it wont even use her activated att sim. mine, however, was unlocked with ipsm and took my activated att sim (that i got with my iphone) and seems to be working. Obviously, i cant use my other sim card being there's no other way to jailbreak/activate the phone other then with itunes and all the legit att stuff right now.. though my phone has not been put into 'lockdown' mode while her seems to have been, not accepting her legit sim).

I guess there was just a right way, and wrong way to force it to unlock, and ipsm did the right way?:P I cant say i know anything about how they do it, all i know is they, from teh start, kept saying it was a different way the the other methods... apparently they were right?

anyway, justmy 2 cents. best of luck to everyone with an iLimbo, hope dev team releases some type of fix for everyone!

rfbandit
Sep 27, 2007, 07:13 PM
Well, I'm an AT&T subscriber, and I used iUnlock just to test it. The update bricked my phone, got the incorrect sim error. I put my wife's iPhone sim in it, still incorrect sim. They are both AT&T sims on valid iPhone accounts. I forced the iPhone into recovery mode, still no fix. Another change in the firmware from the update is: instead of the yellow triangle for recovery mode. It now shows the iPod/iPhone plug with an arrow to the iTunes logo. The same as the iPod Touch.

igglepuff
Sep 27, 2007, 07:14 PM
Sure. But on the other hand it's not illegal for apple to retaliate by "accidentally" bricking it either. They sell a product that's intended to be used with a contract, do you honestly think they'd just sit and let that happen, not respond to it?

I don't see why anyone would be surprised by this, I'm surprised it took apple this long to start bricking phones. If you don't like the terms, just don't buy the phone.

like i mentioned in my post im sure i'll be flamed for heh, i don't see them purposely doing it, at all. Especially seeing as ipsm unlocked phones aren't in activation limbo with a pre activated att card while other unlock method's are (and report the other IMEI for lockdown mode as it's beign called). They updated stuff, security im sure what what now, and it broke most unlocked phones. They didn't, and by no means should have, taken steps to try to prevent it, however, if they reallyw anted to brick unlocked phones im sure ipsm phones would be iLimbos now also..

Joedy
Sep 27, 2007, 07:15 PM
iPhone owners can do whatever they want with their device as they see fit; they've paid for the item and the customers have the final say in how it is utilized.


If Apple doesn't like the notion of customers using their purchased Apple products in their own prerogatives, then that is just too bad for Apple.


What should happen in this fiasco is the following:

1) Apple should unlock all new iPhones and ship them without a SIM card.

2) Apple should announce that their "best iPod ever" can be used strictly as a traditional iPod or as a WiFi-enabled personal management device right out of the box.

3) Apple should announce that certain features of the "best iPod ever" will ONLY work with an ATT wireless account. Other features would work, just not the ones designed with ATT Wireless in mind.

4) Apple wins with the hardware sales, ATT wins with the wireless sales and customers who don't want ATT or a wireless plan in order to have the "best iPod ever" will also win.



While it's tempting to take the Holy View that folks have brought this upon themselves, but the raw, unabashed truth is that Apple has created this situation and should own up to offering a solution that pleases all parties.


It continues to amaze me that Apple somehow feels that their "best iPod ever" is best marketed as a restricted device which limits customer choices.


Apple computers run Windows, they run Intel PC games, they run other OS systems, Apple iPods work with a wide variety of platforms.... Apple now prides themselves with allowing their customers the widest possible choices in the use of their Apple hardware.


In light of the current state of Apple hardware accommodation, why make such a boneheaded decision like they have done with the iPhone?


I sincerely hope that an Apple employee forwards my message to Steve Jobs himself. I'd like to see a rationale for their decision.


-joedy

CWallace
Sep 27, 2007, 07:22 PM
By not releasing an unlocked iPhone in the first lace, as probably everyone except AT&T's board of directors would have liked.

Apple was the one who dangled the service exclusivity agreement to the wireless carriers. AT&T was just the one willing to pony-up the most cash to Apple to get the contract.



As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

Apple has many attorneys on staff and on retainer who are well-versed in contract and copyright law.

So does AT&T.

As such, you can be pretty confident that both Apple and AT&T vetted these deals and conditions prior to signing them. The fact that you do not have to buy an iPhone at an AT&T store and have it activated before you leave the premises is proof of this. They know there are loopholes or exceptions in the legal code that allow folks to buy an iPhone and not subsequently activate it with AT&T, but they also know that the contract they require you to sign of your own free will prior to sale gives them certain legally-recognized rights and legally restricts some of your freedoms to do what you wish with that iPhone.

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 07:27 PM
If you buy an iPhone...STICK WITH ATT.
Fine-print (and it wasn't even in fine print) is there not to just take up space. If you void a warranty what do you expect?

Please, the silliness is unnecessary. No one finds it interesting, helpful, or anything otherwise positive. Unlockers still have unlocked phones. Unlockers will have to wait longer than non-unlockers and those attached to their 3rd-party apps to get the 1.1.1 update, but we're all going to get it, eventually. So there's no need for those "I told you so's." I guess if that's what gets your sails up that's OK, but know that all the crap about rules is meaningless. no one is breaking rules, they are only breaking license agreements. If Apple catches them, they don't have to hold up their end of the bargain--support of any kind. NOBODY CARES. That's how it goes. A little patience, and we'll have our cake and eat it too--double-spacing and roaming preferences right in our phones, and our third party apps and all. And what will the haters have? stock iPhones and silly faces. Enjoy.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 07:34 PM
iPhone owners can do whatever they want with their device as they see fit; they've paid for the item and the customers have the final say in how it is utilized.

-joedy

What is amazing to me is how many people do not understand that they entered into a multi-payment contract with Apple and ATT when they CHOSE to by an iPhone.

Apple obtains revenue from multiple sources to fund the development, manufacture and overhead and profit associated with the iPhone. You only paid part of the price when you bought the hardware. The other ways Apple expects your to pay (and told you so up front before you chose to buy) is by subscribing for a minimum of 2 years with ATT for cell phone and digital service since Apple is paid a piece of your payment every month from ATT. The other way it expects you to pay is by buying content from the iTunes store (songs and ring tones). They also hope that you will buy accessories from them and potentially add-on software in the future.

When you hack your phone to add your own ring-tones or software, your depriving Apple of revenue and potentially making the phone less secure. When you unlock your phone and go to another carrier, your again depriving Apple of revenue that it counted on when it sold you the phone.

If Apple did not plan to derive part of its revenue associated with the iPhone from those other sources, the iPhone hardware would have cost a lot more and would have more than likely made the iPhone non-marketable. There would not have been an iPhone...don't you understand?

Your chose to enter into this agreement with Apple and to allow it to get the rest of the revenue required to cover the true cost of the phone in what amounts to installments. Now your trying to go back on the deal and in essence not pay the rest that is due Apple.

Why wouldn't they do what ever they can to force you people who will not play by the original agreement to do so? I only wonder why they waited so long to lock down the iPhone...i would not have.

Dave

biggerbearbrian
Sep 27, 2007, 07:36 PM
Apple was the one who dangled the service exclusivity agreement to the wireless carriers. AT&T was just the one willing to pony-up the most cash to Apple to get the contract.





Apple has many attorneys on staff and on retainer who are well-versed in contract and copyright law.

So does AT&T.

As such, you can be pretty confident that both Apple and AT&T vetted these deals and conditions prior to signing them. The fact that you do not have to buy an iPhone at an AT&T store and have it activated before you leave the premises is proof of this. They know there are loopholes or exceptions in the legal code that allow folks to buy an iPhone and not subsequently activate it with AT&T, but they also know that the contract they require you to sign of your own free will prior to sale gives them certain legally-recognized rights and legally restricts some of your freedoms to do what you wish with that iPhone.

Agreed, and unlockers still have their legal rights, hence Steve Job's "Cat and Mouse" speech.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 07:37 PM
OK, but know that all the crap about rules is meaningless. no one is breaking rules, they are only breaking license agreements.

License agreements are a form of contract and a contract actually spells out the "rules" of how two or more parties will act in commerce."

So, yes your breaking the rules.

Dave

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 07:42 PM
Agreed, and unlockers still have their legal rights, hence Steve Job's "Cat and Mouse" speech.

Its always interesting to see how many people imagine and assume that they have legal rights to justify any action they take. Rarely, is there actually a truly legal right to support their position. Just because your assume it does not make it so.

Most likely, if this "Cat and Mouse" game continues much longer, you will see the attorneys of Apple and ATT squash any of the mice it can find. They won't put up with this for long. They are now in the "we will make it much harder for them and see what happens" stage. Next will come a few high visibility massive lawsuits which will scare off just about anyone that facilitates unlocking, making our own ring tones or allowing you to install non-authorized applications. Most folks do not have the deep pockets to take on Apple and ATT and will cease and decist after receiving nothing more than a very stongly worded letter.

This too will pass,

Dave

Macmiller
Sep 27, 2007, 07:44 PM
Why in Gods earth would Apple honestly try to stop the iPhone Hackers.. this has to be one of the most exciting things to ever happen to Apple and it's products. With the obvious neck hold on the market that AT&T has on the iPhone users, it's absolutely wonderful that the Mac community has got excited and empowered to take their beloved Apple product(s) and keep it a free spirited wonder tool! This isn't about hackers taking money from Apple.. quite the opposite... We're all running out buying phones now.. because we can use them!! As an Apple user for 20 years!!! I can't wait to join the world of iPhone users and I'll give my money to Apple to buy a phone. No problem!.. we love you!! and your products! But you start talking about punishing the Apple enthusiasts, the people that buy your products and enjoy using them... and also love creating new and exciting bits of software to make these very cool devices even cooler, you want to kill their iPhones for making them work for their personal needs... that's totally wrong.. sorry, but it's wrong! (Unless of course.. you forget to leave that other hole open.. or by mistake, you create another one somewhere.. I don't know) .. I'm not a hacker so I don't really understand the hacking part of all this.. but what I do understand and see quite readily is another Apple crazed community growing faster than anything else I've seen out of Apple other than the iPod. Speaking of which.. Did you make the Touch able to send Text messages by way of WiFi?.. So collage students around the world can sit in there homes or classes and communicate without the cost of cellular connections? C'mon. Anyway, the iPhone is becoming another cultural phenomenon.. not from the way it ships in the box but by the way it's community and users can grow with it, learn with it, explore with it and.. oh yeah, use it as a phone (on any network)... all while spreading nothing but good things about the phone and the Apple Corporation. You kill those people.. and you'll do serious damage to it's own viral marketing. Just sit back and watch your sales go UP and the creativity flow! Steve? I know you have to understand this! It's beautiful!! You have created exactly what you wanted.. a device that users can't get enough of. Why don't you just sell it ready for hacking! Here kids.. ROCK ON! And we've made it even easier to create what you want!

It's an Apple.. Enjoy!

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 07:47 PM
License agreements are a form of contract and a contract actually spells out the "rules" of how two or more parties will act in commerce."

So, yes your breaking the rules.

Dave

Smart. Except for the part where you're wrong. You can breach a contract, and there are consequences for that. To whit: We hack our phones, we don't get support, and we risk getting our phones bricked. A contract is not a law, it's an agreement, and the consequences of failing to adhere to it are commensurate with the actions taken to break the contract. We're not talking about laws where you might get fined or put in jail. This is exclusively about whether or not you can receive support from Apple.

Moreover, you are not bound to a contract with AT&T until you sign that contract, and that signature is not implicit until you activate the phone. If you choose to activate the phone via some other method, then you avoid entering into that particular contract--With the effect of voiding your warranty.

The fact that you call people willing to abide by the consequences of their actions "dishonest" shows the real travesty of your "honorable" logic. The fact that you're so vehement about modders and so supportive of monopolists is inherently hypocritical. Why don't you leave them alone?

sananda
Sep 27, 2007, 07:47 PM
What is amazing to me is how many people do not understand that they entered into a multi-payment contract with Apple and ATT when they CHOSE to by an iPhone.


License agreements are a form of contract and a contract actually spells out the "rules" of how two or more parties will act in commerce."

So, yes your breaking the rules.

Dave

i'm not saying that you are wrong, but how did people enter into a "a multi-payment contract with Apple and ATT" by choosing to buy an iphone. i haven't seen the license agreement you are referring to (i don't have an iphone) but if possible could you point us to the part which says you may not unlock the phone and you are obliged to sign up with at&t (not just to activate features but as a total obligation)?

Compu-Tor
Sep 27, 2007, 07:53 PM
I've also heard that legitimate GoPhone users with locked phones are getting bricked by 1.1.1 - but it's not confirmed by more than 1 source, yet.

Not here. 1.1.1 and all is working well, exception being iToner ringtones.

BrianKonarsMac
Sep 27, 2007, 07:55 PM
What about accountability?

They warned you about hacking your phone, told you point blank it could brick your phone if you try to update it, yet you still chose to do so ignoring their warnings and then cry when your iphone gets bricked when you tried to update your hacked iphone.

You chose to do all the above. How is apple responsible? And since when is hacking/modding hardware or software ever covered by any warranty by any company? i can't think of any.

btw, you is not literally YOU, i have no idea if you personally hacked your iphone. just trying to make a point.

exactly, well said.

you were warned, you knew what you were doing and you knew the consequences. you have nobody to blame for your brick other than yourself. Does it suck your phone is broken? yes, but you knew that YOU were going to break it.

megfilmworks
Sep 27, 2007, 07:58 PM
A lot of hackers are posting that they have legal rights. The only legal right they have is not to be arrested. That is the sole right they retain.
Apple owns the software and if the software is corrupted by the end user then they still have the hardware they bought. i.e. a brick.

synth3tik
Sep 27, 2007, 07:59 PM
Let's take at peek at your own quote:


Emphasis mine.

Apple does not state anywhere that you outright are not allowed to unlock the iPhone for use on an international carrier. Nor does it mention anywhere that activation with AT&T is required for the warranty to remain valid. Why? Because U.S. law prevents them from making such a stipulation. Once a piece of hardware has been purchased, a company may not restrict what can be done with that hardware. They can place limitations on software licenses, but not hardware uses. Therefore, they may not make a software issue cause for denying a hardware warranty.

The trick arises in wether or not unlocking is a "hardware" or a "software" modification. I don't think the status of firmware as hardware or software has ever been tested in court.


You knew what they meant though, quit trying to play around with words.

PDE
Sep 27, 2007, 08:03 PM
You knew what they meant though, quit trying to play around with words.


Come on, that's all Apple does: play with and distort words for their own benefit and protection.

ncbill
Sep 27, 2007, 08:06 PM
There is no requirement to sign a contract at your local Apple store (hand over 5 Benjamins, get your change, and walk out).

There is also no need to activate the iPhone with an AT&T plan prior to unlocking it to work with another cellular provider.

No contractual relationship exists between the purchaser of an iPhone and AT&T, until the purchaser chooses to activate it on a 2-year plan with AT&T.

License agreements are a form of contract and a contract actually spells out the "rules" of how two or more parties will act in commerce."

Dave

JD914
Sep 27, 2007, 08:07 PM
Hopefully the hackers will get tired of the game and move back to hacking MS and we can all enjoy our iPhones in peace.

Not gonna happen. Hopefully the hackers will be more determined to overcome this minor inconvenience and come back stronger with easier activation hacks and better 3rd party apps. Their here and their not going anywhere. :rolleyes:

PDE
Sep 27, 2007, 08:11 PM
Its always interesting to see how many people imagine and assume that they have legal rights to justify any action they take. Rarely, is there actually a truly legal right to support their position. Just because your assume it does not make it so.

Most likely, if this "Cat and Mouse" game continues much longer, you will see the attorneys of Apple and ATT squash any of the mice it can find. They won't put up with this for long. They are now in the "we will make it much harder for them and see what happens" stage. Next will come a few high visibility massive lawsuits which will scare off just about anyone that facilitates unlocking, making our own ring tones or allowing you to install non-authorized applications. Most folks do not have the deep pockets to take on Apple and ATT and will cease and decist after receiving nothing more than a very stongly worded letter.

This too will pass,

Dave


Only thing is: Apple's lawyers have little jurisdiction outside the U.S., and especially not in countries where its practices are not legal. This will not stop and the more APple tries to stop it, the more people will try to fight back. It's human nature and Apple should know better.

megfilmworks
Sep 27, 2007, 08:14 PM
Not gonna happen. Hopefully the hackers will be more determined to overcome this minor inconvenience and come back stronger with easier activation hacks and better 3rd party apps. Their here and their not going anywhere. :rolleyes:
That's too bad! Those 3rd party apps just slow up your phone and limit all of us to software updates aimed at the hackers. What a waste!!

JD914
Sep 27, 2007, 08:21 PM
That's too bad! Those 3rd party apps just slow up your phone and limit all of us to software updates aimed at the hackers. What a waste!!

Is that what happened to your phone when you modified it? The apps slowed down your phone? Whats there to complain about? Now you have an I tunes wifi store! :rolleyes:

megfilmworks
Sep 27, 2007, 08:24 PM
Is that what happened to your phone when you modified it? The apps slowed down your phone? Whats there to complain about? Now you have an I tunes wifi store! :rolleyes:
In my business I am surrounded by professional geeks. They all modded their iPhones and all most everyone, including me, gave up because of the piss poor performance penalties. Lock up your iPhone, dump the hacks and you will remember just how clean and fast it was before you hacked it. My iPhone works great now. I don't want hackers or foreign bureaucrats designing my software, let them stick to messing up their own world.

ncbill
Sep 27, 2007, 08:31 PM
Not necessarily.

What most people have missed so far is that individual states (if Apple has a point of presence) have jurisdiction to modify the terms of a manufacturer's warranty, and have done so.

In many states, if your new car is a lemon, the manufacturer has a limited number of attempts to fix the problems before they must buy it back from you, or trade it for another of the same model.

That's why you see, at the end of warranty statements, "This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state."

A state agency can decide all on its own that merely unlocking the iPhone does not allow Apple to void the warranty.

Or that if a easy solution to "unbricking" an iPhone you've unlocked does exist (e.g., a simple reflash at the Genius bar), that Apple must offer that service (the state can cap the price of that service as well)

Of course, given Apple's statements, it seems clear Apple doesn't think bricked phones can be fixed, period.


If you choose to activate the phone via some other method, then you avoid entering into that particular contract--With the effect of voiding your warranty.

Analog Kid
Sep 27, 2007, 08:38 PM
With all due respects, Dave, your comments are simply absurd at best and comical at least.

iPhone owners can do whatever they want with their device as they see fit; they've paid for the item and the customers have the final say in how it is utilized.

...

If Apple doesn't like the notion of customers using their purchased Apple products in their own prerogatives, then that is just too bad for Apple.

While it's tempting to take the Holy View that folks have brought this upon themselves, but the raw, unabashed truth is that Apple has created this situation and should own up to offering a solution that pleases all parties.

First, ease up on the double space. My posts are long too, but I've got the courtesy to fill them with blather, not whitespace.
Apple hasn't created any situation. They've created a mobile phone. People disregarding Apples usage guidelines, subverting the update mechanism, reverse engineering the deepest levels of firmware, making changes to code they don't control, ignoring warnings from the company that updating might be bad, and then whining when their house of cards collapses are creating this situation.

Having said that, the reason this whole iPhone thing seems to have to have gone so far is because you are reading an iPhone forum. Politics are best discussed elsewhere.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 08:41 PM
A lot of hackers are posting that they have legal rights. The only legal right they have is not to be arrested. That is the sole right they retain.
Apple owns the software and if the software is corrupted by the end user then they still have the hardware they bought. i.e. a brick.

Correct!

Many folks here do not understand the difference between a "law" and a "legal obligation" both of which are handled by the courts...in one case a criminal court and in the other a civil court.

However, I give up trying to tell them the how they are both related to enforcing "the law."

Your turn to try. ;-)

Dave

mklos
Sep 27, 2007, 08:42 PM
By not releasing an unlocked iPhone in the first lace, as probably everyone except AT&T's board of directors would have liked.

That one decision caused a huge split in Apple's customer base, which has lead to the same opinion-dominated discussions we see over and over again on MacRumors (like the one in this thread that I've just contributed to) and, in turn, lead to Apple being forced to release locked phones in other countries (for fear that unlocked phones would make their way back into the States) and - as a final insult to loyal Apple customers who've salivated over this device and were ready to spend their hard earned money on it - has likely lead to it not being released *AT ALL* in countries that have the good sense to not allow companies to wield the kind of anticompetitive muscle that Apple is now flexing.

That's how.

If you don't like Apple's policies, then don't buy the iPhone! Plain and simple!

Everyone was warned ahead of time and yet they still think they've been wronged some how.

Anyone's iPhone that has been bricked doesn't deserve to get a new one and most likely will not. I'm sure a group of idiots will organize a class-action lawsuit over this.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 08:43 PM
There is no requirement to sign a contract at your local Apple store (hand over 5 Benjamins, get your change, and walk out).

There is also no need to activate the iPhone with an AT&T plan prior to unlocking it to work with another cellular provider.

No contractual relationship exists between the purchaser of an iPhone and AT&T, until the purchaser chooses to activate it on a 2-year plan with AT&T.

That is rubbish.

You must activate your iPhone through iTunes (and OK the agreement) prior to gaining full use of your iPhone. I you choose to go around the proper activation process for the phone...you loose don't you?

Dave

briand05
Sep 27, 2007, 08:46 PM
How can a device by "bricked" by a software modification? One way or another I believe that any of the errors on the unlocked phones will be easily fixable, it's a pure software problem that can be resolved.

briand05
Sep 27, 2007, 08:47 PM
That is rubbish.

You must activate your iPhone through iTunes (and OK the agreement) prior to gaining full use of your iPhone. I you choose to go around the proper activation process for the phone...you loose don't you?

Dave

It is your phone, you paid for it and you can do whatever you want with it. Stop shilling.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 08:53 PM
It is your phone, you paid for it and you can do whatever you want with it. Stop shilling.

No so. You agreed to certain conditions when you purchased the phone and now you have to live with them.

The reality speaks for itself...those that broke the agreement lost. Now they have no iPhone, just a nice looking brick.

So, I guess you can't just do with it what you want..in fact you can't do anything with it now.

Dave

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 08:55 PM
i'm still hoping daveporter might help me out with these questions.

Please go to the Apple web site and take a look at the requirements. Its all there for you to see. Try here first:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/questionsandanswers.html

At the bottom right of the page it says:

Can I “unlock” iPhone and use it with another wireless carrier?
AT&T is the exclusive wireless carrier for iPhone in the United States. If you currently use another wireless carrier, you can choose to transfer your number when you activate your AT&T account.

I don't think they could make it more clear.

The iPhone is a great product. If the features appeal to you and your willing to abide by the agreements and conditions, you will love it.

If not, buy a Nokia or some other brand that gives your what ever features you want that the iPhone does not.

Dave

briand05
Sep 27, 2007, 08:56 PM
No so. You agreed to certain conditions when you purchased the phone and now you have to live with them.

The reality speaks for itself...those that broke the agreement lost. Now they have no iPhone, just a nice looking brick.

So, I guess you can't just do with it what you want..in fact you can't do anything with it now.

Dave

It's just a software issue, which will be fixed. As I said it's impossible to "brick" a device with a software hack alone.

sananda
Sep 27, 2007, 09:09 PM
Please go to the Apple web site and take a look at the requirements. Its all there for you to see. Try here first:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/questionsandanswers.html

The iPhone is a great product. If the features appeal to you and your willing to abide by the agreements and conditions, you will love it.

If not, buy a Nokia or some other brand that gives your what ever features you want that the iPhone does not.

Dave

i have been to the website. i might have missed something but i can't see anything along the lines of you must enter "into a multi-payment contract with Apple and ATT when....(you)...CHOSE to by an iPhone". i see you must have a two year contract to activate the phone but i don't see any stipulation that must enter into a contract with at&t. these are not the same thing. if you are correct, and you may be, then if i buy an iphone and take it home and place it on a shelf for two years unused, at&t would still be entitled to demand $1,439.76 from me. so i don't really follow your logic and don't see any support for it on the website.

the other thing i was asking you about was the license agreement. because i think you were saying that the license agreement says you can't unlock the phone. i can't find that license agreement of the website and but you seem to be familiar with it, so i was hoping you might tell me what it says about unlocking (and also whether it says you must take at&t service).

biggerbearbrian
Sep 27, 2007, 09:17 PM
Its always interesting to see how many people imagine and assume that they have legal rights to justify any action they take. Rarely, is there actually a truly legal right to support their position. Just because your assume it does not make it so.

Most likely, if this "Cat and Mouse" game continues much longer, you will see the attorneys of Apple and ATT squash any of the mice it can find. They won't put up with this for long. They are now in the "we will make it much harder for them and see what happens" stage. Next will come a few high visibility massive lawsuits which will scare off just about anyone that facilitates unlocking, making our own ring tones or allowing you to install non-authorized applications. Most folks do not have the deep pockets to take on Apple and ATT and will cease and decist after receiving nothing more than a very stongly worded letter.

This too will pass,

Dave

Well, this is my last response to you. It is legal to unlock, Apple and ATT can fight it, but its legal now. I wonder why you want so much lockdown, its kind of weird. You're argument's too shall pass...

sananda
Sep 27, 2007, 09:22 PM
Please go to the Apple web site and take a look at the requirements. Its all there for you to see. Try here first:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/questionsandanswers.html

At the bottom right of the page it says:

Can I “unlock” iPhone and use it with another wireless carrier?
AT&T is the exclusive wireless carrier for iPhone in the United States. If you currently use another wireless carrier, you can choose to transfer your number when you activate your AT&T account.

I don't think they could make it more clear.


Dave

ah..you edited your post with this reference after i replied so i didn't see it. the thing is that doesn't say you can't unlock the phone. it just says at&t is the exclusive carrier. it couldn't really be less clear.

Anonymous Freak
Sep 27, 2007, 09:25 PM
Wish me luck.

From what I can tell from posts on other forums, the problem is when your phone's IMEI doesn't match what Apple has on file. Apparently the unlocking tool sometimes makes your phone's IMEI change (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/24/how-to-relock-your-iphone-before-the-firmware-update). I have just checked, and my phone's IMEI is correct.

My phone is both hacked (Installer.app plus a few apps,) and unlocked (although I am using the original AT&T SIM; I only unlocked because the option was there, and because I will be going to Mexico in a month, and would like to use a local SIM instead of having massive AT&T roaming charges.) I have no problem with re-locking my phone, I can live with just getting an el-cheapo phone in Mexico. But it sounds like as long as the IMEI matches, I don't have to re-lock.

EagerDragon
Sep 27, 2007, 09:28 PM
Sorry Dave,

As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

I agree (and think most people who have unlocked their phones would or should) that since unlocking the phone voids the warrantee, those who have done so have to live with the consequences of it and need to live with that. I actually don't have an iPhone, yet, and am still trying to decide whether to unlock it or switch to ATT.

Sorry US Law states that you have the right, if you so desire to unlock your phone. It also allows you to ignore all other rules set forth by manufactorers. However it does not state that you are excepted from a contractual agreement. Take it to court, the phone was a brick when you purchased it, only way to enable in compliance with the agreement was to use itunes and signup for 2 year contract with at&t. If you broke the rules and later ignored the warnings, well you got a brick.

I am building a brick wall outback, im paying $0.10 for each brick.

You have the right to be foolish so long as you make your bed and lay on it.

shadowfax
Sep 27, 2007, 09:32 PM
ah..you edited your post with this reference after i replied so i didn't see it. the thing is that doesn't say you can't unlock the phone. it just says at&t is the exclusive carrier. it couldn't really be less clear.

That's exactlyy right. That's the striking thing about the iPhone FAQ, is that you really get the feeling they know that they can't tell you you're not allowed to do certain things, so instead they word it in terms of what you "can do," not specifically excluding the thing you're asking to do.

daveporter
Sep 27, 2007, 09:37 PM
ah..you edited your post with this reference after i replied so i didn't see it. the thing is that doesn't say you can't unlock the phone. it just says at&t is the exclusive carrier. it couldn't really be less clear.

Its very clear to me and it will be to any court that is ever asked the question.

Dave

sananda
Sep 27, 2007, 09:40 PM
Its very clear to me and it will be to any court that is ever asked the question.

Dave

it's interesting that you should mention a court. because any court asked to interpret that question and answer you mention would immediately note that apple have perfectly purposefully avoided their own question. it simply does not answer the question "can i unlock my phone".

macintologist
Sep 27, 2007, 09:51 PM
I unlocked my iPhone using the iUnlock method from modmyiphone.com. I have a legit ATT iPhone sim card in my iPhone and I have a proper AT&T account for my iPhone. I have since done an iTunes restore to 1.0.2.

The IMEI number on the back of my iPhone is the exact same listed in the iPhone About menu.

Will the 1.1.1 update brick my iPhone?

etaylor3971
Sep 27, 2007, 09:55 PM
Today, I stupidly upgraded my unlocked phone (well it was unlocked at one time, but after a restore, the unlock no longer worked) and I got the wrong sim error.

I took the phone to the local Apple store and the Genius bar folks looked in their system and sure enough, because the IMEI number didn't match it told the Genius that it was an unlocked phone. The bottom line he said was that it was not something they would fix.

He did say that hopefully someone will figure out how to unbrick it (he prefaced that statement with "Apple doesn't want me to say this, but...").

So I bought a new phone, moved the old sim over, activated it via iTunes and then upgraded to 1.1.1, restored the settings from my old phone, synced my music, addresses, etc and $429 later, I'm back in action.:apple:

A very expensive lesson. But I will hold onto the old phone and hope someone figures out a solution. Then I'll probably sell it on ebay.

Best of luck everyone --:o

Eric/San Diego

biggerbearbrian
Sep 27, 2007, 09:57 PM
Sorry US Law states that you have the right, if you so desire to unlock your phone. It also allows you to ignore all other rules set forth by manufactorers. However it does not state that you are excepted from a contractual agreement. Take it to court, the phone was a brick when you purchased it, only way to enable in compliance with the agreement was to use itunes and signup for 2 year contract with at&t. If you broke the rules and later ignored the warnings, well you got a brick.

I am building a brick wall outback, im paying $0.10 for each brick.

You have the right to be foolish so long as you make your bed and lay on it.

I haven't disagreed with you in anything I've said. Legally an iPhone owner has the right to unlock their phone. Exercising that right may, and probably will, brick their phone if they ignore all warnings, and update.

Tazthecat
Sep 27, 2007, 10:08 PM
Well, this is my last response to you. It is legal to unlock, Apple and ATT can fight it, but its legal now. I wonder why you want so much lockdown, its kind of weird. You're argument's too shall pass...

I don't think Dave ever said it was illegal. He is saying that people that are unlocking the iPhone are doing so against the terms of service. Also these actions void the warranty. Here is an excerpt from the warranty (with portions bolded by me)

"Apple does not warrant that the operation of the product will be uninterrupted or error-free. Apple is not responsible for damage arising from failure to follow instructions relating to the product’s use.

This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products; (b) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire,
earthquake or other external causes; (c) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple; (d) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple; (f) to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (g) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; or (h) if any Apple serial number has been removed or defaced. "

So if someone modified the phone, it might be legal (in terms of criminality) but it is against the terms of the warranty and Apple does not have an obligation to repair any hacked iPhones bricked by the update.

As far as the iPhone being tied to AT&T, they wanted a carrier that they could partner with and was willing to make infrastructure changes to provide functionality (meaning the carrier would invest money in their network for functions Apple wanted). AT&T was willing to make those investments and also share in revenue so they wanted an exclusive agreement. This was a business decision. In a perfect world, we would get everything we want (unlocked, hackable iPhone) but Apple needed to do what it had to do to get the iPhone released.

-ron-

Analog Kid
Sep 27, 2007, 10:12 PM
Only thing is: Apple's lawyers have little jurisdiction outside the U.S., and especially not in countries where its practices are not legal.
That's ok, this isn't about law anyway...
How can a device by "bricked" by a software modification? One way or another I believe that any of the errors on the unlocked phones will be easily fixable, it's a pure software problem that can be resolved.
It's just a software issue, which will be fixed. As I said it's impossible to "brick" a device with a software hack alone.
It's very easy to brick a hardware device by software update, if for no other reason than software is what performs the update itself. Muck that up and you're hosed. Same if you lose critical information-- suggestions are that it's the IMEI getting hosed (the phone ID) that is the root of the problem here. Another would be putting the device into an endless loop at boot.

No, there are very many ways of bricking a device by software.
It is your phone, you paid for it and you can do whatever you want with it. Stop shilling.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again-- it's your car, you paid for it, and you can fill the tank with sugar if you want to...

As far as my own feelings on the matter (not that your comments were addressed to me), I actually like the ingenuity I see in all the hacking of the iPhone. There's a certain electricity when you see people so jazzed about a device that they want to reach in and control every part of it. I think it's cool that one of the original unlock programs came from a kid-- I think the desire to be a part of this pushed him to learn more. I'm also sympathetic to hacking as a way of protesting Apple's decisions.

What drives me absolutely crazy though is people charging over and over that Apple did something to them when their experiments go off the rails. Apple can not be expected to anticipate what you're going to do to your personal device, nor can they be expected to bend over backwards to accommodate it. Other vendors can allow custom modifications because they give an application space for those devs to work within. Apple hasn't, and therefore there's no safe zone for you to muck with things.

You are welcome to do what you wish with your phone, but you can't expect Apple to protect you from yourself.
Well, this is my last response to you. It is legal to unlock, Apple and ATT can fight it, but its legal now. I wonder why you want so much lockdown, its kind of weird. You're argument's too shall pass...
Again with the legality! Maybe this is the root of the argument here... I for one, believe it is perfectly legal for you to unlock your phone, and it sounded to me like Dave's thinking was the same. My beef, and I suspect his, is people arguing that Apple needs to coddle people who make unpredictable changes to an amazingly complex device despite Apple trying very hard to discourage that and then follow that up by updating the device after Apple tried very hard to warn pregnant women and those with heart, back and neck problems not to do so.
Thank you. I am young at heart! I'm probably older than you are so there's no need to be patronising.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound patronizing. Always dangerous to guess about those you can neither see nor hear...

andleg
Sep 27, 2007, 10:21 PM
A resume :
If you don't want to use locked phones : don't buy iPhone
If you don't want to use ATT network : don't buy iPhone
If you live outside US : don't buy iPhone

If you have to invest don't buy Apple shares because Apple is forgetting 95% of mobile phone market share.

Nice move Steve ??:confused:

andleg
Sep 27, 2007, 10:28 PM
If you develop mobile phone software, dont' develop for iPhone.
(it can be deactivated at next update).

In my case I was planning to buy one iPhone and to develop application for it but now I will, probably wait for google phone or some other competitor:confused:

:rolleyes:

coleridge78
Sep 28, 2007, 12:01 AM
It's just a software issue, which will be fixed. As I said it's impossible to "brick" a device with a software hack alone.

Utter nonsense. For the most obvious example, think of hacking the power management kernel extensions such that the fan in your laptop never kicks in and the processor melts. :P

Or, more apropos, modifying firmware that you don't really understand such that you destroy the part of it that is responsible for managing proper firmware updates... at best, it would take opening the device and flashing chips back to a known factory state to recover. At worst, there may be underlying damage that prevents even that.

In short, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

shadowfax
Sep 28, 2007, 12:48 AM
Utter nonsense. For the most obvious example, think of hacking the power management kernel extensions such that the fan in your laptop never kicks in and the processor melts. :P

Or, more apropos, modifying firmware that you don't really understand such that you destroy the part of it that is responsible for managing proper firmware updates... at best, it would take opening the device and flashing chips back to a known factory state to recover. At worst, there may be underlying damage that prevents even that.

In short, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Heh, the easiest, most repeatable way to brick a device with only software is usually to flash the firmware and cut power to it in the middle of the update.

ajhill
Sep 28, 2007, 01:57 AM
If you develop mobile phone software, dont' develop for iPhone.
(it can be deactivated at next update).

In my case I was planning to buy one iPhone and to develop application for it but now I will, probably wait for google phone or some other competitor:confused:

:rolleyes:


You're going to be waiting a long time. In case you hadn't noticed, the iPhone IS the Google phone. Google is all over the iPhone, Google search, Google maps. Not to mention that Googles CEO is on Apple's board of directors!!!

The iPhone IS the Google phone, end of story.

Fwink!
Sep 28, 2007, 03:14 AM
It is your phone, you paid for it and you can do whatever you want with it. Stop shilling.

You CAN do whatever you want with your iPhone, the physical shell and the innards, You can paint it green and wear it like a hat if you'd like.

But the software that makes it work, is Apple property that you are licensed to use. And Apple has said, if you mess with it, it'll break. Simple enough.


As far as unlocking it goes. You have a legal right to get it unlocked - if you are able to do so. But Apple has no responsibility to facilitate that. You're on your own there.

Basically, Apple has the resources to block any and all hacking efforts, and they have a right to do so.

No matter how convoluted the software becomes, making it harder and harder to hack, theoretically it could still be unlocked, and that's all you have a right to expect.

Part of this is the intention of the law. The loophole in the DMCA is not meant to facilitate hacking of proprietary code. It's meant to "theoretically" make obsolete, or incompatible phones useful in emergency situations.

At least that's how I see it.

totoum
Sep 28, 2007, 04:20 AM
Fine,let me see if i understand the situation,it is perfectly legal for you to unlock your phone,some people have even said they wanted to sue apple because they think what apple is doing (releasing an update that breaks your unlocked phone) is illegal,that to me has little to do with the subject,even if you think that what apple is doing is illegal,they didn't force people to download the update and they even warned people with unlocked phones that it could damage them.
I understand people who say this:"I see a warning saying that if i download this update it will probably break my phone,I think what apple is doing is wrong,i'm not not going to download it."
I understand people who say this:"I see a warning saying that if i download this update it will probably break my phone,I think what apple is doing is wrong,but i'm going to download it anyway,even though no one is forcing me too (user downloads the update and sees that the phone is broken)....That sucks,oh well,I still think what apple is doing is wrong, but hey,no one forced me to,i took a chance and it didn't work out,should have known better than to ignore a warning"

However,I don't understand people who say "I see a warning saying that if i download this update it will probably break my phone,I think what apple is doing is wrong,but i'm going to download it anyway,even though no one is forcing me too (user downloads the update and sees that the phone is broken)....That suck,it's all apple's fault,i'm going to the macrumors forums to complain"

Joedy
Sep 28, 2007, 04:57 AM
If you don't like Apple's policies, then don't buy the iPhone! Plain and simple!


That has been my official "voice" in the matter.

If Apple wants me to purchase an iPhone, it will be only when they sell the devices in a fully unlocked state with the option to use the device without the phone or to use the device with the wireless carrier of my choice.

Money. This is the sole language that Apple speaks and until then, they won't earn my sale.

-joedy

ascender
Sep 28, 2007, 06:21 AM
Am I missing something here?

It was common knowledge that the new update would probably do something to unlocked phones, so why are people applying it in the first place?

Also, why are Apple being slammed for providing locked phones in the first place when its common place in the mobile market and given the support they provide to the device after purchase, I'd have thought it would make even more sense?

And finally, since day one, everyone has known the risks to unlocking an iPhone, so what did people expect?

This post isn't meant to be a preachy, told-you-so or holier than thou sort of thing, but I just don't understand how this thread has come around given the above, let alone the direction its going in now. :confused:

footandmaff
Sep 28, 2007, 06:48 AM
I don't know why people even bother making any comments on here about the iPhone as it boils down to the same argument over and over again.

a) "I bought an iPhone I should be able to do what I like with it!!"
b) "Read the agreement, don't moan because it doesn't work when you try and buck the system!!"

I understand that there are differences in opinion over whether you should be able to unlock the iPhone or not but can we please stop going over the same tired argument it's really getting very old very fast!

devilot
Sep 28, 2007, 07:06 AM
Please stay ON TOPIC and leave the personal insults out of this. Thanks.

trashie
Sep 28, 2007, 07:07 AM
So..The whole story is..
-IPhones priced 600$ as a "gift" for the most utterly Apple fans who would buy them immediatly.The ones who would/could pay 600$ for a phone, did it.

-Once those fans were "happy", Apple cuts down the price to 400$..to reach more wallets.Oh, also begins appearing a few ways to unlock those 400$ iphones...

I wonder how many iPhones have been sold with the 400$+unlock possibility combo,specially for use outside the US...Begin counting..4 in my office (Spain).

-For sure, this cannot be allowed for much time, as Apple gets profit if people stick with AT&T...so, after selling a few thousands iphones more,for people all around the world...They brick'em.

Does it end here?No!They still are able to make their "good" users like good citizens, as opposed to those other pesky hackers!!
And, in the end, i agree with the "good citizens" and "the hackers" at the same time.You can do what you want with your iPhone, *as you bought it*.You can unlock it.You can upgrade it.Oh.Upgrading bricks it!!.Oh, well, you did what you wanted, isn't it?Not knowing the consecuences doesnt change that fact.It's so simple...choose:your iPhone as-is, or the upgrade...
Oh, maybe what happens is that without upgrading, you cant use any more certain "services" outside your iPhone..Well, those services aren't yours, are they?Their owners can change it..

So, i agree with the two points of view.What makes me curious, as not-an-apple-fan, is how is possible to play with your fans, make them spend their money (repeatedly), and, still,their feeling is "i'm a good citizen".Wow.Really, Apple is abusing you.
At least,Gates is soo polite that will refuse to upgrade your Windows if it's not original.Wont brick your PC.
Sure,sure, Apple "couldnt do the same due to technical issues..."..of course...
But , well, they at least are making people buy a SECOND iPhone! Wow! I don't think Steve had imagined THAT!

And,oh, as the software,as some people say, is "licensed", better hope that their next "update" dont require, say, a subscription to iWalletSucker to run your "just-licensed-not-owned" OS.You have a device that depends on external services to work properly.Just hope they dont change those services to keep playing and abusing owners.

Just *too* much for inertial menus and multitouchs..

AVR2
Sep 28, 2007, 07:19 AM
Money. This is the sole language that Apple speaks and until then, they won't earn my sale
Fine. Somehow, I think they'll manage to soldier on without your sale ;)

What I do find strange - apart from all those whining that applying a software update they were told not to apply has bricked their hacked iPhones - is the inability of many people to grasp that the reason for the lock is to make the iPhone affordable in the first place.

AT&T is subsidising the cost of the iPhone so that you can buy it at $399 rather than $699 or $799 (or maybe more). That's how these exclusivity contracts work, and it's how they've been working in the mobile phone market for well over a decade now.

Now, Joedy might be willing to pay $799 for an official unlocked iPhone, but Joedy will be very much in the minority, and Apple wants the iPhone to become a mass-market product in the same way that the iPod has. So it goes for the approach that is most likely to allow this to happen - using an exclusive contract with a carrier, which allows them to subsidise the price of the handsets.

Surely none of this is new to anyone? It certainly seems like it, though...

sananda
Sep 28, 2007, 07:27 AM
AT&T is subsidising the cost of the iPhone so that you can buy it at $399 rather than $699 or $799 (or maybe more)

what is your source for this information? or are you assuming?

ncbill
Sep 28, 2007, 07:33 AM
That does not constitute a valid contract between the purchaser and AT&T.

Neither Apple nor AT&T have any legal recourse against a consumer who purchases an iPhone and unlocks it to work on T-Mobile or on another GSM provider.

Please go to the Apple web site and take a look at the requirements. Its all there for you to see. Try here first:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/questionsandanswers.html

At the bottom right of the page it says:

Can I “unlock” iPhone and use it with another wireless carrier?
AT&T is the exclusive wireless carrier for iPhone in the United States. If you currently use another wireless carrier, you can choose to transfer your number when you activate your AT&T account.

I don't think they could make it more clear.

The iPhone is a great product. If the features appeal to you and your willing to abide by the agreements and conditions, you will love it.

If not, buy a Nokia or some other brand that gives your what ever features you want that the iPhone does not.

Dave

trauma62
Sep 28, 2007, 08:01 AM
Some people might think that the upgrade is only a cosmetic one, but it is not. It also addresses severe security issues on the Safari browser and mail application. So , if you think you can survive w/o the iTunes Wi-Fi store think again, there is a lot more to it than just business .
:)

foodog
Sep 28, 2007, 08:13 AM
I take issue with your assertions in this and another string concerning, particularly, iPhone unlocking. Unlocking is exempted from The DMCA. So, even though Apple doesn't like it, or condone it, it is still withing the realm of legality to unlock cell phones across the board. To quote the US Copyright office.

"The underlying activity sought to be performed by the owner of the handset is to allow the handset to do what it was manufactured to do—lawfully connect to any carrier," ... "This is a noninfringing activity by the user... The purpose of the software lock appears to be limited to restricting the owner’s use of the mobile handset to support a business model, rather than to protect access to a copyrighted work itself."

I think it can be debated that Apple dangled the bait out there by not forcing buyers to get a plan PRIOR to buying the iPhone. While hacks, and 3rd party Apps may be a much darker shade of grey; unlocking the phone is not illegal. While it surely breaks the warantee, that really is the iPhone owner's choice, as the individual buyer does in fact own the phone.


Just because unlocking is legal it doesn't mean Apple has to support it. You should not have bought it if you didn't like the terms they set forth.

Hack the phone if you want. When it turns into a brick don't cry about it.

That does not constitute a valid contract between the purchaser and AT&T.

Neither Apple nor AT&T have any legal recourse against a consumer who purchases an iPhone and unlocks it to work on T-Mobile or on another GSM provider.

They don't need a legal recourse. You unlock the phone you void the warranty. Pretty simple concept. If you can't or don't want to use AT&T DON'T BUY THE PHONE!

KaiMac
Sep 28, 2007, 08:17 AM
A lot of you disgruntled hackers act like Apple is the only phone hardware provider who "locks" their phones. This happens with any phone you buy at any store. Only difference is the iPhone runs a true OS, which allows Apple to enhance the feature of the phone over time. Quit crying about your bricked iPhone and switch to AT&T or go back to running around town with your "Razor" or "Sidekick" like everyone else out there. This is a non issue to Apple, they could care less and they will do this to you with every update. I think its great.

Kai

Today, I stupidly upgraded my unlocked phone (well it was unlocked at one time, but after a restore, the unlock no longer worked) and I got the wrong sim error.

I took the phone to the local Apple store and the Genius bar folks looked in their system and sure enough, because the IMEI number didn't match it told the Genius that it was an unlocked phone. The bottom line he said was that it was not something they would fix.

He did say that hopefully someone will figure out how to unbrick it (he prefaced that statement with "Apple doesn't want me to say this, but...").

So I bought a new phone, moved the old sim over, activated it via iTunes and then upgraded to 1.1.1, restored the settings from my old phone, synced my music, addresses, etc and $429 later, I'm back in action.:apple:

A very expensive lesson. But I will hold onto the old phone and hope someone figures out a solution. Then I'll probably sell it on ebay.

Best of luck everyone --:o

Eric/San Diego

If every hacker out there goes and buys a new phone to fix their bricked one, then Apple has come up with a great way to sell more phones! I guess they'll see you at the store with every software/firmware update! As a shareholder, I love you.

Breesha
Sep 28, 2007, 09:11 AM
Just so everyone knows, I have never altered or modded my phone in any way, shape, or form, and the update bricked my phone last night. It took me approximately 12 attempts for uninstalling, re-installing, restoring, etc. I eventually had to resort to a different computer to restore, and even then, it took me at least 4 tries.

I got it to restore, but of course, lost everything I had, which REALLY burns me, but whatever.

At least now it's not a $500 paperweight.

Unspeaked
Sep 28, 2007, 09:57 AM
You're going to be waiting a long time. In case you hadn't noticed, the iPhone IS the Google phone. Google is all over the iPhone, Google search, Google maps. Not to mention that Googles CEO is on Apple's board of directors!!!

The iPhone IS the Google phone, end of story.

Uh, sure - you keep thinking that.

Of course, you'll have to ignore that the Wall Street Journal and BBC News have reported a prototype model.

And that reports have been made that Google has already partnered with Linux firm OpenMoko to develop the operated system.

And that Google's filed a patent for GPay, a SMS based payment system for use on their platform.

Or this:

Google Admits to Plans for Phone (http://www.directtraffic.org/OnlineNews/Google_admits_to_mobile_phone_plan_18094880.html)

Frankly, the way Apple's been acting with the iPhone, I hope Google's phone materializes soon and become a catagory killer - the iPod of phones. As is clearly evident from these forums, the iPhone itself a very far from that now...

TitoC
Sep 28, 2007, 11:09 AM
It seems that there is a lot of "rabble-rousing" going on in this forum. There are those who say "Leave the iPhone and its software alone - don't hack it!" And there are those who like having their phones being open and being able to add what they want.

Outside of the Unlocking aspect (i.e. SIM switching) which is a little bit of a different subject, I would like to discuss only the "Modding" aspect of the iPhone (i.e. 3rd party applications).

For those of you who say that these "hacks" are taking up too much of Apple's valuable time and research out of developing real fixes and apps for the iPhone by dedicating their time to circumventing the ability of these "hacks" to get into the iPhone, I say "Bull!" This only helps Apple. "How?" you ask. Well, by simply doing their research and work for them. This only helps Apple by finding out where these holes are in their system and improving on it.

Granted, this also makes it harder for these 3rd party developers in making their iPhone apps. Everyone developing 3rd party apps already knows that what they are creating is not approved nor sanctioned by Apple, so this is nothing new. So what do they do? Dig deeper and find alternative ways. And what comes from this? Innovation, creative programming and development.

And who benefits from this? Well I think those of us who are enjoying these 3rd party apps, future iPhone customers as well as Apple. Apple? Yes, Apple. It gets them a chance to sit back and see what designers and programmers are developing for the iPhone as well as to see what kinds of apps people are most interested in. This gives them a chance to "preview" what kinds of apps Apple can offer to consumers in the near future. Again, they are doing some valuable R & D for them.

Steve Jobs was even quoted at the recent announcement of the iPhone in the UK that they are currently "looking into some of these apps" and looking into possibly aquiring them for future apps for the iPhone.

All someone has to do is to see the history of Apple and its aquiring of talent and software in its recent past. Programs such as Apple's popular Widgets came from a piece software known as Konfabulator. A designer & programmer, Mike Matas came from Delicious Monster. A company making software for the Mac community.

Again, innovation OUTSIDE of Apple.

People seem to forget that a lot of innovation and discovery in this industry comes from people thinking "outside the box" as well as outside the "company." Everything that comes from Apple or even companies like Apple don't always start at Apple. Innovation comes from a need and a desire to find alternative ways to solve problems or needs. Innovation is what makes companies stay one step ahead of the competition. Innovation needs to be admired, courted and encouraged. No matter what form it comes in. Let Apple do what it thinks it needs to in order to keep its software and hardware safe, secure and free of bugs. But people also need to realize that if it wasn't for a lot of the industry's "Hacks," we wouldn't have half of the innovations we seem to enjoy today.

This reminds me of two innovative computer geeks who invented the "blue box," an illegal pocket-size telephone attachment that would allow the user to make free long-distance calls over a particular telephone network.

The "Geeks" were Steve Jobs & Stephen Wozniak.

The telephone network was AT&T (ironic, isn't it?).

Just a little history lesson for those of you who forgot.

crisc
Sep 28, 2007, 11:31 AM
All this talk about legality.

This question is you purchased the phone, now do you own Apple's code or are you using Apple code with their permission?

My say is that you do not own the OSX code or the firmware code.

So when you hack into the code and make changes your are doing so without Apples permission.

Did Apple give you permission to alter its code.

I do not think it is open sourced.

So, yes the phone is yours, you can rip the battery out and sell it someone else, but taking the code and selling it is illegal

DrV
Sep 28, 2007, 12:25 PM
A lot of you disgruntled hackers act like Apple is the only phone hardware provider who "locks" their phones. This happens with any phone you buy at any store.

What? Any phone? I got my first GSM phone in 1996, and I have had pretty many of them since. None of them has been locked in any way.

AFAIK, Apple iPhone is the only major GSM phone type which cannot be bought unlocked at any price. There are other carrier-specific phones around, but they are just minor modifications of something generally available.

Yes, I would like to buy an iPhone. Despite my long history with Windows and *X operating systems and PC hardware I have really grown to like Apple. Now Apple is offering something new and nice with great reviews. I am quite confident the user experience is great. Where can I get one so that it will accept a SIM of any networks available here?

Oh, did I mention that the world is not flat? There is really no edge over which you would fall into the void, so actually you can sail over an ocean. There is more world on the other side.

I am not saying Apple is doing something illegal. I am just saying that the iPhone is really different from everything else in this sense. But does ignoring the majority of GSM phone market do any good to shareholders, either?

I took the phone to the local Apple store and the Genius bar folks looked in their system and sure enough, because the IMEI number didn't match it told the Genius that it was an unlocked phone.

If unlocking a phone changes its IMEI, there is a problem. The IMEI code is a unique code given to a phone when it is manufactured. No two phones in the world should have the same IMEI, ever.

One of the uses of the IMEI code is that it can be used to brick stolen phones. If an IMEI is reported to belong to a stolen phone, the phone should not work in any GSM network (not all operators honor the blacklists, though). As a consequence, hacking the IMEI is something less-law-abiding citizens are sometimes quite interested in.

IIRC, it is illegal in some countries (e.g. the UK) to change the IMEI or even to possess equipment to change it.

While I do not like the idea of some company bricking unlocked phones on purpose, I do not like the idea of phones with forged IMEIs, either. Bricking them is quite acceptable.

techyjoe
Sep 28, 2007, 01:48 PM
Sounds like a lot of people need to read the Software License Agreement they agreed to by using their iPhone. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf

By USING your iPhone you agreed to these terms. Has nothing to do with AT&T. Plain and simple fact is these terms were agreed upon by pressing the power button. If you didn't agree to these terms why didn't you return the phone for a refund. Apple has every right to terminate the license agreement if you fail to comply with the terms. You might own the hardware but your licensing the software from apple. If they disable the software because you failed to comply, it's your own fault and they are not obligated to honor a warranty that was voided when you violated the terms. Can't be any more clear. Where's the confusion and whining coming from?

abiwoody
Sep 28, 2007, 01:57 PM
This is why I don't use Apple or AT&T. I don't even use Microsoft's products. These companies have people like puppets on strings.

ncbill
Sep 28, 2007, 05:03 PM
Apple would be forced to provide full refunds (no restocking fee allowed) were they intentionally attempting to disable unlocked iPhones.

Please note Apple has gone to great pains to warn everyone that their latest software update could, though *inadvertently*, disable an unlocked iPhone permanently.

In no way do they want to give anyone an excuse to accuse them of deliberately disabling an iPhone.

Again, no contract has been agreed to by simply purchasing an iPhone.

You are free to unlock it and use it with your choice of GSM provider.

Sounds like a lot of people need to read the Software License Agreement they agreed to by using their iPhone. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf

By USING your iPhone you agreed to these terms. Has nothing to do with AT&T. Plain and simple fact is these terms were agreed upon by pressing the power button. If you didn't agree to these terms why didn't you return the phone for a refund. Apple has every right to terminate the license agreement if you fail to comply with the terms. You might own the hardware but your licensing the software from apple. If they disable the software because you failed to comply, it's your own fault and they are not obligated to honor a warranty that was voided when you violated the terms. Can't be any more clear. Where's the confusion and whining coming from?

PDE
Sep 28, 2007, 05:09 PM
Sounds like a lot of people need to read the Software License Agreement they agreed to by using their iPhone. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf

By USING your iPhone you agreed to these terms. Has nothing to do with AT&T. Plain and simple fact is these terms were agreed upon by pressing the power button. If you didn't agree to these terms why didn't you return the phone for a refund. Apple has every right to terminate the license agreement if you fail to comply with the terms. You might own the hardware but your licensing the software from apple. If they disable the software because you failed to comply, it's your own fault and they are not obligated to honor a warranty that was voided when you violated the terms. Can't be any more clear. Where's the confusion and whining coming from?


It's not like that software license is in the box in paper form. You have to start your iphone, activated it with ATT and then read through countless pages buried in the general tab in settings. So, if you open it up like most people would do, and start using it normally, it would be a long time before you accidentally stumbled on the software license agreement. By that time, people can't return it without a restocking fee and I doubt Apple would wave the restocking fee if a customer said s/he can't agree to the software license. Whatever is all I can say. People defending the dubious, obfuscating practices of a big corporation...blah!

DeathChill
Sep 28, 2007, 05:13 PM
I really don't get why Apple "accidentally" somewhat bricked iPhones as they could have EASILY avoided all of this. The way they applied the update was specificly to harm unlocked phones, which makes me laugh.

mklos
Sep 28, 2007, 05:33 PM
what is your source for this information? or are you assuming?

They have to be assuming because it was said that it only costs Apple like $200 or so to make the phone. So its not like Apple is now selling the iPhone at a loss now because they've significantly reduced the price.

techyjoe
Sep 28, 2007, 10:15 PM
How do figure that using an unlocked phone on another network is complying with the Software License Agreement? Your still using Apples Boot Rom and other embedded software including OSX. Still violating the terms of the agreement. Not to mention the reverse engineering required to have unlocked the phone. Read the Software License Agreement in detail.


Apple would be forced to provide full refunds (no restocking fee allowed) were they intentionally attempting to disable unlocked iPhones.

Please note Apple has gone to great pains to warn everyone that their latest software update could, though *inadvertently*, disable an unlocked iPhone permanently.

In no way do they want to give anyone an excuse to accuse them of deliberately disabling an iPhone.

Again, no contract has been agreed to by simply purchasing an iPhone.

You are free to unlock it and use it with your choice of GSM provider.

techyjoe
Sep 28, 2007, 10:24 PM
The Software License Agreement itself wasn't in the box, but on page 15 of the Important Product Information Guide (which comes in the iPhone box) states "Use of the iPhone is subject to the iPhone Software License Agreement found at: www.apple.com/legal/sla". This can be read before you activate your phone.

Why are so many people so determined to find a way around it. It is what it is. If you purchased an Xbox and modified it causing a software malfunction do you think Microsoft would replace it under warranty?




It's not like that software license is in the box in paper form. You have to start your iphone, activated it with ATT and then read through countless pages buried in the general tab in settings. So, if you open it up like most people would do, and start using it normally, it would be a long time before you accidentally stumbled on the software license agreement. By that time, people can't return it without a restocking fee and I doubt Apple would wave the restocking fee if a customer said s/he can't agree to the software license. Whatever is all I can say. People defending the dubious, obfuscating practices of a big corporation...blah!

Analog Kid
Sep 28, 2007, 10:37 PM
I really don't get why Apple "accidentally" somewhat bricked iPhones as they could have EASILY avoided all of this. The way they applied the update was specificly to harm unlocked phones, which makes me laugh.
Do enlighten us on the easy way...

LastZion
Sep 28, 2007, 10:44 PM
Today, I stupidly upgraded my unlocked phone (well it was unlocked at one time, but after a restore, the unlock no longer worked) and I got the wrong sim error.

I took the phone to the local Apple store and the Genius bar folks looked in their system and sure enough, because the IMEI number didn't match it told the Genius that it was an unlocked phone. The bottom line he said was that it was not something they would fix.

He did say that hopefully someone will figure out how to unbrick it (he prefaced that statement with "Apple doesn't want me to say this, but...").

So I bought a new phone, moved the old sim over, activated it via iTunes and then upgraded to 1.1.1, restored the settings from my old phone, synced my music, addresses, etc and $429 later, I'm back in action.:apple:

A very expensive lesson. But I will hold onto the old phone and hope someone figures out a solution. Then I'll probably sell it on ebay.

Best of luck everyone --:o

Eric/San Diego

Can we get this thread back on track to posts like this one, enough of the right/wrong, legal/illegal... lets hear from the people that have tried to update and have failed or succeeded.

island
Sep 28, 2007, 10:48 PM
The way I see it is if you mess with a phone, do so at your own risk. If you can trick them into fixing it under warranty, more power to you. If not, too bad.

Thunderbird1
Sep 29, 2007, 12:39 AM
The King is naked...everyone sees....

Aren't we are supposed to be living in a free society? Free
societies use "laissez faire economics" to do business. In other
words, free enterprise. Corporate Apple sells a product, consumer
buys product and decides how they want to use it. They may choose to
use it as a doorstop or a phone. It is ridiculous to think I am
barred from using my phone however I want, as long as it does not
encroach on another.
If it happens to not fit in the "box" that Apple
thinks it should, but the consumer does, shouldn't they change their attitude (agreements)? What ever happened to the philosophy the customer is always right?
The consumer will decide the best course of
action for the product, but the company better listen to the consumer
or there will be a huge backlash. It happens with every business. ATT
is an outstanding example of a company that tries to do the opposite
of the free enterprise market philosophy. They simply don't care
about the consumer, but do care about total control over the consumer
the way "they think is best." ATT would like to change the name to
iControl, not iphone. If you have any doubt, read their agreement and
see how much in control they are. How much information they want from
you, including your SS#(talk about invasion of privacy! Aren't
these some of the reasons why they were busted up years ago? Most saw
them as a threat to free enterprise.
Cannot believe Apple teamed up
with such a rough company. You can bet your last dollar they are
screaming at Apple to do something about the obvious popularity of
the unlock program. It is very legal to do and they know it. If ATTs
service were good and fair, they would not need to say a word. We
would all use it. That is the genius of free enterprise, the consumer
decides which carrier to use, not the other way around. You can bet
all carriers would compete in a most fair manner to win your
patronage. You are king and decide the future of Apple and ATT not
them deciding our future.
If only Nokia, Samsung, Sony and others
would give them a run for their money. Apple and ATT would not behave
this way. Competition is always best for us the consumer. Without the
consumer Apple & ATT would not exist. There are many examples of
trying to lock the consumer out. Which history proves, only results
in bad PR for everyone involved. It takes years to get rid of a bad
taste in everyone's mouth. That is precisely the reason the ATT name
was retired for such a long while, before they started the "New ATT"
with Apple. Those who fail to recognize history are destined to
repeat the same mistakes. Will they never learn?

techyjoe
Sep 29, 2007, 12:58 AM
So apple puts a product on the market but requires you to use a particular carrier. What's the problem? Did steve jobs force you to buy an iPhone? Or maybe you live where AT&T doesn't provide service. Again, did steve jobs force you to buy an iPhone knowing that you can't subscribe to AT&T's service?

hollerz
Sep 29, 2007, 02:09 AM
Can we get this thread back on track to posts like this one, enough of the right/wrong, legal/illegal... lets hear from the people that have tried to update and have failed or succeeded.

Agreed. Who cares if you think it's right or wrong, fact is we have unlocked it and want to know what effect this firmware has on our phone. No-one wants to see you get on your high horse and tell us we shouldn't of done it.

AVR2
Sep 29, 2007, 03:06 AM
They have to be assuming because it was said that it only costs Apple like $200 or so to make the phone
I am *not* assuming. IT IS A FACT - in exchange for the exclusive carrier contract, AT&T are part-subsidising the cost of the iPhone to make it more affordable for end users. Want an official unlocked iPhone? Fine - are you prepared to pay double the retail cost?

This kind of business model has been in use throughout most of the developed world for well over a decade now. Indeed, it is what kickstarted the mass-market cellphone revolution; the carriers realised that if they subsidised phone prices, they would more than make their money back through the massively increased number of users they would attract.

That's why phones are so much cheaper - sometimes even given away free (literally) - if you agree to sign up to a service contract at the point of sale. The service provider is subsidising the cost of your purchase, or even buying the phone for you outright, because you are worth far more to them as an ongoing customer than it costs them to buy you the phone.

Is this a concept that's new to the USA?

Steve Jobs addressed this at the London iPhone launch; a journalist asked why the iPhone was locked to one provider, and Jobs replied, among other things, that it was the best way to bring it to market at the most affordable price.

As for the idea that the iPhone supposedly only contains about $200 of parts... well, maybe it does. But what does that have to do with it? When you buy an iPhone, you're not just paying for the parts, you're paying for the years of R&D, you're paying for the salaries of the people on the production line, you're paying for the salaries of the people who design and print the boxes and manuals, you're paying for the cost of the initial tooling-up of the production lines... exactly the same as with *any* new consumer electronics product.

And as with any new consumer electronics product, it's the early adopters who bear the brunt of the cost. It's because they pay more that later adopters can pay less. And when the AT&T contract runs out, I would imagine that the iPhone will have made enough money back for Apple to start selling it unlocked.

neveleven
Sep 29, 2007, 06:02 AM
[QUOTE=daveporter;4250104]That is so much misguided logic.

From the very first time I (and you) saw any type of announcement, advertisement, flyer, brochure, web site discussion, or any other official description of the iPhone, Apple made it expressly clear that the iPhone MUST be activated with ATT to be used AT ALL for any purpose. What part of that did you not understand?

You purchased the iPhone with that understanding. Period!

What your now trying to do is find some rational for your choosing to ignore what you clearly knew when you purchased the phone.

There is NO rational excuse for anyone choosing to hack or unlock his/her iPhone. Your warrantee is now voided and you have little or no recourse. That is the penalty one must pay when on ignores an agreement made.

Dave[/QUOTE

The thing costs £200, who cares. IF anything happens to them we could always go buy another!

OllyW
Sep 29, 2007, 06:15 AM
I really don't get why Apple "accidentally" somewhat bricked iPhones as they could have EASILY avoided all of this. The way they applied the update was specificly to harm unlocked phones, which makes me laugh.

Do enlighten us on the easy way...

They could have added a pre-check to the updater which would refuse to install the firmware update if the phone was hacked.

PDE
Sep 29, 2007, 07:19 AM
They could have added a pre-check to the updater which would refuse to install the firmware update if the phone was hacked.

I have to agree. I mean, since they know exactly how the phones were unlocked (what part of the firmware was modified), it should have been easy to just refuse the installation. They do it with macs all the time - and I'm sure they could have done it with the iphone too.

megfilmworks
Sep 29, 2007, 09:16 AM
Do these sim unlocks change the IMEI? That would change the whole picture regarding owner's rights and legalities.

PDE
Sep 29, 2007, 10:08 AM
Do these sim unlocks change the IMEI? That would change the whole picture regarding owner's rights and legalities.

My iphone's IMEI in the about section is the same as on the box. I unlocked using iunlock. I've unlocked a few iphones for friends too and they all kept the IMEI number too.

flyingdoctor
Sep 29, 2007, 10:15 AM
My IMEA number is still the same. I'm sure I read somewhere that it is only when you do the upgrade to 1.1.1 that the IMEA number changes. If that happens then Apple / AT& T know it has been unlocked.

DeathChill
Sep 29, 2007, 10:24 AM
"Apple has multiple ways of upgrading the [firmware of the] baseband [radio chip] without committing a 500,000-phone massacre.
First, they can issue a secpack [security pack] for everything in the firmware. They could simply issue one of these to restore the value if a regular token is not detected, thus rewriting this part to its original state. This process would most likely defeat any unlock available, Dev Team or iPhone Sim Free, without bricking the iPhone in any way.

New firmware updates could also employ new firmware which closes the loophole that allows the use of a secpack for other operations. They could make this method of updating even resistant to tampering or abuse for a unlock. The possibilities are there."

See, all Apple had to do was update in a slightly different way and it would have not harmed any of the phones. It would also have fixed any phones that had accidentally screwed up without the use of hacks.

sananda
Sep 29, 2007, 10:34 AM
I am *not* assuming. IT IS A FACT - in exchange for the exclusive carrier contract, AT&T are part-subsidising the cost of the iPhone to make it more affordable for end users.

could you please point us to the authority for this fact?

JonMan
Sep 29, 2007, 12:36 PM
could you please point us to the authority for this fact?

Yes, please do provide an authority for this "fact". As an AAPL shareholder, I have read through all of their financial statements, and have seen no evidence of any subsidization from ATT.

So please, enlighten us good sir. I await your response.

Analog Kid
Sep 29, 2007, 06:24 PM
They could have added a pre-check to the updater which would refuse to install the firmware update if the phone was hacked.
They did do a precheck-- they told you that if you've unlocked your phone, don't apply the update. It is quite possible that changes were made during the unlock that can't be detected from software.
Do these sim unlocks change the IMEI? That would change the whole picture regarding owner's rights and legalities.
I've heard mixed information on this. It appears that the IMEI does change in some cases, and in others it does not.
See, all Apple had to do was update in a slightly different way and it would have not harmed any of the phones. It would also have fixed any phones that had accidentally screwed up without the use of hacks.
Can you identify the source of your quote? I find a Gizmodo page that quotes it out of context, as you have, but I can't find a primary source.

If I had to guess what's causing the bricking, it wouldn't be changes to the code itself, but more likely relocation of ROM data that is unique to the phone. Since Apple can't know where that was moved to, they can't avoid overwriting it.

On the other hand, it's quite possible that Apple simply decided it's not their problem to go through all these extra hoops to protect people who modified their phones improperly.

Cleverboy
Sep 29, 2007, 06:41 PM
See, all Apple had to do was update in a slightly different way and it would have not harmed any of the phones. It would also have fixed any phones that had accidentally screwed up without the use of hacks.The iPhone Dev Team are being political, and quite frankly, they're covering their own asses and I can understand why. Some "unlocks" do NOT brick. Did you know that?

There's a problem when the original manufacturer tells you they don't support something they've seen out in the wild, and that it might create problems with an update. Meanwhile, the various unlocking camps aren't completely benefitting from a free and open flow of information. Some are selling, some are just trying to claim sole glory, others are making money on eBay offering pre-unlocked devices no doubt explictly sold AS-IS.

Now, after the update, users are looking to them for answers they don't have. Is that a motive to bend the truth about what Apple is and isn't capable of, demand support for their own profit centers and nascent efforts? Of course it is. If it were so simple, THEY should have designed something that prevents an update without warning the user that updating the firmware could cause issues. They could have tested it against existing "restore" methods. To ME, that is the ONLY thing that should have happened. I feel for the people buying unlocked phones, who aren't being properly informed about risk.

Read this article:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4260052&posted=1#post4260052

~ CB

ryanwarsaw
Oct 1, 2007, 12:33 AM
The phone is not available outside the U.S. at the moment. You're comment makes no sense.

The iPhone is on sale at malls in Thailand. It just isn't "officially" available outside the USA.

Thunderbird1
Oct 1, 2007, 05:43 AM
Aren't we are supposed to be living in a free society?
Free societies use "laissez faire economics" to do
business. In otherwords, free enterprise. Corporate Apple sells a product, consumer buys product and decides how they want to use it. They may choose to use it as a doorstop or a phone. It is ridiculous to think I am
barred from using my phone however I want, as long as it does not encroach on another. If it happens to not fit in the "box" that Apple thinks it should, but the consumer does, shouldn't they change their attitude (agreements)? What ever happened to the philosophy the customer is always right? The consumer will decide the best course of action for the product, but the company better listen to the consumer
or there will be a huge backlash. It happens with every business. ATT
is an outstanding example of a company that tries to do the opposite
of the free enterprise market philosophy. They simply don't care
about the consumer, but do care about total control over the consumer
the way "they think is best." ATT would like to change the name to
iControl, not iphone. If you have any doubt, read their agreement and
see how much in control they are. How much information they want from
you, including your SS#(talk about invasion of privacy! Aren't
these some of the reasons why they were busted up years ago? Most saw
them as a threat to free enterprise. Cannot believe Apple teamed up
with such a rough company. You can bet your last dollar they are
screaming at Apple to do something about the obvious popularity of
the unlock program. It is very legal to do and they know it. If ATTs
service were good and fair, they would not need to say a word. We
would all use it. That is the genius of free enterprise, the consumer
decides which carrier to use, not the other way around. You can bet
all carriers would compete in a most fair manner to win your
patronage. You are king and decide the future of Apple and ATT not
them deciding our future. If only Nokia, Samsung, Sony and others
would give them a run for their money. Apple and ATT would not behave
this way. Competition is always best for us the consumer. Without the
consumer Apple & ATT would not exist. There are many examples of
trying to lock the consumer out. Which history proves, only results
in bad PR for everyone involved. It takes years to get rid of a bad taste in everyone's mouth. That is precisely the reason the ATT name
was retired for such a long while, before they started the "New ATT"
with Apple. Those who fail to recognize history are destined to
repeat the same mistakes. Will they never learn?

megfilmworks
Oct 1, 2007, 11:39 AM
The King isn't naked, he's wearing a black turtleneck and jeans.
And he is ejecting hackers from the court.

Naimfan
Oct 1, 2007, 11:52 AM
Aren't we are supposed to be living in a free society?
Free societies use "laissez faire economics" to do
business. In otherwords, free enterprise. Corporate Apple sells a product, consumer buys product and decides how they want to use it.

You are free to not buy the iPhone.....

The iPhone, whether you like it or not, is a package of a piece of hardware, made by Apple, and a communications network, provided by AT&T.

The decision you, as the consumer, get to make is whether or not the iPhone package suits your needs. If it does, and you want to, buy it and enjoy. If it does not, don't buy it. That's how you decide how you want to use it. You can also write Apple and AT&T and request they add whatever you believe is lacking in their product package. That is "free enterprise" at work.

zwida
Oct 1, 2007, 12:13 PM
Aren't we are supposed to be living in a free society?
Free societies use "laissez faire economics" to do business. In other words, free enterprise.

I think your use of laissez-faire is a bit misguided. You're not talking about regulation restricting, stifling, or otherwise impeding business. In fact, it's that we're somewhere along the path to laissez-faire that makes all of this (Apple's move into the wireless space, etc) possible in the first place, so I'm dubious of your equating their particular EULA with external (governmental) regulation.

Sure, I happen to think that some would be better served in the end if Apple had a truly open stance on a number of fronts, but they don't and that is well within their corporate rights (at least in the current business/regulatory environment in the US).

I know this argument has been getting kicked back and forth by a number of posters in a number of forums and there's little point in my jumping in at this point, but such general ideological confusion and your conflation of "free society" and "laissez-faire" with "I can do whatever I want with my stuff" got my goat.

I'm sympathetic to many of these ideas, but it's helpful to keep them straight.

ryanwarsaw
Oct 1, 2007, 12:39 PM
You are free to not buy the iPhone.....

The iPhone, whether you like it or not, is a package of a piece of hardware, made by Apple, and a communications network, provided by AT&T.

The decision you, as the consumer, get to make is whether or not the iPhone package suits your needs. If it does, and you want to, buy it and enjoy. If it does not, don't buy it. That's how you decide how you want to use it. You can also write Apple and AT&T and request they add whatever you believe is lacking in their product package. That is "free enterprise" at work.

I understand your sentiment but it is being openly sold in countries it isn't licensed in. They do not explain hacks and technical information with potential customers. It is being sold in Bangkok for around $750 dollars and nobody is informed of hacking.

Some people imported it and are making a huge profit off of it which is also free enterprise at work. apple already got paid from the proceeds and ATT doesn't exist here. I do not think Apple should brick people's phones that bought it and didn't know any better. Not everybody that will buy one reads these forums.

The least they should do is possibly restore the phone if it is broken by updates or do a trade in program where you can send the hacked one in and pay to have it work again later with the appropriate carrier (if one is ever available).

AVR2
Oct 1, 2007, 03:08 PM
Yes, please do provide an authority for this "fact". As an AAPL shareholder, I have read through all of their financial statements, and have seen no evidence of any subsidization from ATT
All the information is there if you only look for it. As I say, this kind of subsidy is absolutely standard practice in the mobile phone industry - it's the reason why phones cost much less, or are even given away free, if you choose to sign up with a specific service provider at the point of sale (you understand that, right?). The service provider is subsidising your purchase because it will make more out of you as a customer than it loses on the subsidy.

But since this thread contains people who apparently seem to think that because the iPhone contains about $200 of parts, Apple only needs to sell it at $201 to cover its costs and make a profit, I shouldn't be surprised at a general lack of awareness of how the mobile phone market works.

sevenone
Oct 2, 2007, 06:10 PM
why isn't anyone angry at the "companys" or hacker that are providing the unlock solution? Why not sue them for not taking into account what Apple may do in the future. Isn't that the same as some of you saying "Apple should take in to account what the hackers did"? How does, for example, what iUnlock states in it's disclaimers that "You understand that you, as Apple's customer, are unlocking your phone. We are only the agent that assists you to make the unlocking possible. You are responsible for any warranty consequences that may arise as a result of unlocking." or "We do not guarantee that future updates from Apple will not re-lock your phone or prevent future unlocking" prevent backlash to them?

Apple states that it checks your software and hardware by sending non personal data to apple periodically. If that doesn't match what they have on file, then you are terminated from the agreement. Furthermore "Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the iPhone Software and iPhone Software Updates." that means you OWN a great piece of hardware that you need to now provide software for. Good luck writing that software.

sananda
Oct 2, 2007, 06:20 PM
All the information is there if you only look for it. As I say, this kind of subsidy is absolutely standard practice in the mobile phone industry - it's the reason why phones cost much less, or are even given away free, if you choose to sign up with a specific service provider at the point of sale (you understand that, right?). The service provider is subsidising your purchase because it will make more out of you as a customer than it loses on the subsidy.

But since this thread contains people who apparently seem to think that because the iPhone contains about $200 of parts, Apple only needs to sell it at $201 to cover its costs and make a profit, I shouldn't be surprised at a general lack of awareness of how the mobile phone market works.

you don't have any authority for saying "I am *not* assuming. IT IS A FACT - in exchange for the exclusive carrier contract, AT&T are part-subsidising the cost of the iPhone to make it more affordable for end users". if you did have any authority you would have pointed us to it (after two requests from two separate forum members).

it seems to me that you are, in fact, making assumptions based on your knowledge of what usually happens with contracts and subsidies. you have no specific knowledge of the arrangement between apple and at&t.

i also suspect that you do not understand what a fact is.

dmelgar
Oct 3, 2007, 11:02 PM
I don't own an iPhone.
I am an Apple stockholder.
This is very bad publicity for Apple from what I've heard.

Agreed that modifying the software on your phone is bad, yada yada...

It is a SOFTWARE change. Worst case, Apple should be able to restore firmware on the phone to put it back in its original state. That firmware can be the latest (unhackable) version.

It is in no way acceptable for Apple to brick phones when applying their update, and provide no recourse for customers who've paid good money for their phones to get them working again.

If there was a way to perform a full restore, the 3rd party apps would be gone, the phone is locked again. No harm to Apple nor AT&T. Apple would be forcing the customer to abide by the rules.

But bricking a phone that has no hardware problems is completely wrong. Rather then encourage a customer to follow the rules, Apple had punched them in the gut and smashed their $500 phones. These customers will hate Apple. They would likely go out of their way to never buy another Apple product. This is very bad PR, very bad way to treat customers.

Its as if a cop caught you speeding in your car. Rather than give you a ticket and let you go on your way, they crush and melt down your car. That will teach you to speed! You broke the rules, you were using your car in an unauthorized manner.

Is that Apple's point? Are they trying to teach customers a lesson? If so that lesson will be to never buy Apple products.

I think Apple makes great products. But they also sometimes make some really bonehead PR moves which destroy their potential. After the $200 price drop, I thought it was sensational PR to give everyone a $100 credit. Great way to encourage folks to spend even more money in Apple stores given the 95+% customer satisfaction with the iPhone. Now this draconian move to destroy customers phones. Its beyond belief.

This started days ago, yet just today of a customer in our local Apple store becoming very upset, upset enough that they started throwing his bricked iPhone around until the display was smashed. All the Apple store person would say is that they won't do anything to help hacked phones.

Not a good show. Not good at all. Apple will learn, but at what price. Apple's arrogance out to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

spork183
Oct 6, 2007, 01:47 PM
ah dmelgar,
Dave would not not only condon the frustration, he would encourage the apple employees to laugh hysterically at the frustrated user. I love Apple, but their PR at times is so lacking. I completely agree that any new updates should simply reset the phone to a pristine state with the latest software. Do I believe Apple actively tried to "brick" phones? No. Do I believe they should have realized this was coming? Yes. You can't dangle cake before a baby and not expect them to taste the frosting...

mizdachubz
Oct 7, 2007, 12:43 AM
Okay, I have bought my phone unlocked on ebay. But after a week or so, my family switched to AT&T and I got my 2 year contract. The person at the AT&T store said that my phone is all good and i can use the updates without problems and stuff. Now my iphone is bricked. What now? Do I have a better chance to getting my phone back up?

Anonymous Freak
Oct 7, 2007, 02:05 AM
Okay, I have bought my phone unlocked on ebay. But after a week or so, my family switched to AT&T and I got my 2 year contract. The person at the AT&T store said that my phone is all good and i can use the updates without problems and stuff. Now my iphone is bricked. What now? Do I have a better chance to getting my phone back up?

Did you get the AT&T guy to give you the "my phone is all good" in writing? If so, then they would be liable for replacing your phone. Of course, the AT&T guy might not have any concept of an unlocked iPhone, so he just assumed that because you had an iPhone, you MUST have gotten it from AT&T somehow.

mizdachubz
Oct 7, 2007, 10:08 AM
i'm not sure where i can find the "its all good" writing stuff, maybe its in the invoice? i'll check later

swoosh0217
Dec 12, 2007, 07:42 AM
For all of you who have unlock Iphones, the best advice is not to update the firmware. Stick with your original! I may have the 1.0.2 version and missing out some great features like the built in itunes but what the heck! I haven't had any trouble with mine and my phone is working flawlessly. :)

koobcamuk
Dec 12, 2007, 07:44 AM
I am unlocked with 1.1.1 and it's perfect.

terraforce
Jan 15, 2008, 01:42 AM
I have always been an "Apple User" because it is a superior OS and hardware base, nevertheless: as far as the iPhone goes, Apple stands out as the only cellphone provider out there that demands a share of subscriber revenue - something around 20% to 30%. Not only is this extra cost layed onto you in your service contract, but it clearly shows Apple no longer gives a damn about it's user-base and has become a greedy monster with the iPhone. Apple itself has brought the hacker community directly to it's own doorstep because it has restricted the "freedom of use" of the iPhone. I will not change my mobile provider to give Apple extra cash out of a locked iPhone deal with another provider at all. POWER TO THE HACKERS who will hopefully hack it to hell and back.

All of those who believe that everyone should follow the greedy rules that Apple has set for the iPhone is a sucker in every respect: not only do you pay your mobile provider, you also continue to pay Apple their percentage throughout the contract, yet you have already payed for their phone as well.

illitrate23
Jan 16, 2008, 11:39 AM
not only do you pay your mobile provider, you also continue to pay Apple their percentage throughout the contract, yet you have already payed for their phone as well.
and that continued money that we pay is why we get the 1.1.3 update and the extras for free - and no doubt the ability to use 3rd party written apps will be free too
but the Touch users, who don't pay a monthly subscription and have only paid for the device, they have to fork out $20 each time they want to play with the new toys
i'm not saying it is right or wrong, i'm just saying that the percentage of the contract that goes to apple is not money for nothing.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 16, 2008, 02:25 PM
and that continued money that we pay is why we get the 1.1.3 update and the extras for free - and no doubt the ability to use 3rd party written apps will be free too
but the Touch users, who don't pay a monthly subscription and have only paid for the device, they have to fork out $20 each time they want to play with the new toys
i'm not saying it is right or wrong, i'm just saying that the percentage of the contract that goes to apple is not money for nothing.

Apple's claim is that they can give iPhone and :apple:tv users free updates that add functionality because they spread the income for those devices out over the course of months. It's called "subscription accounting," even though you're not paying a 'subscription' for the device. Lots of accountants have weighed in that Apple's claim that they can't offer new features without charging for them on non-'subscription' products is bogus, though.

Of course, with the financial trouble Apple has gotten in to, I can see some point that they want to play it ultra-safe; but I do think that it is odd that they claim that they can't add Mail/Maps/Stocks/Weather/Notes to the iPod touch without charging $20.

Just a side note as a small business owner, accounting is painful. I have to assume that Apple's team of accountants can handle 'subscription' vs. non-subscription stuff without much difficulty, though. You'd think that any product that has even the potential to be software-upgraded in the future can be accounted for as 'subscription' without causing major harm to Apple's bottom line. After all, it all gets applied as income eventually, anyway.

(Short form of this post: I can vaguely comprehend Apple's explanation, but still think it's bogus.)

Cybergypsy
Feb 19, 2008, 05:17 PM
If you buy an iPhone...STICK WITH ATT.Why they suck really bad.....

want.iphone
Feb 21, 2008, 03:04 PM
For new available iPhone version 1.1.3, which is the best unlocking software available on the internet? Has anyone tried any software which provides all the features on unlocked phone as well :confused:

lesouvage
Feb 27, 2008, 05:11 PM
I have bought an unlocked iPhone but I messed thinks up with an update (I was told it should work but it didn't) so I ended up with a bricked phone. The story is that this program is written by a 13 year old genius. It's working like a sharm and you end up with an unlocked and/or unjailed phone. Not all the free software is working but I'm not sure if this is because I run 1.1.3 and the software isn't ready for this version or because there are some problems with permissions and ownership in the OS of the iPhone because I didn't use it with a virgin iPhone but with one that I had messed up.

What we see is the battle of business models. I'm free to do with phones I buy whatever I like to do but I have to accept that I loose the warranty. For all the buyers outside the US warranty is just theory from the start. How to claim it when something isn't ok? Going to an Apple store won't help. Apple is loosing the battle because their lack of success in keeping the phone closed while this is the key element of the whole business model and the fact that if you want to run some real cool applications on the iPhone you have to unlock and jailbrake it and use the installer to pick this (mostly free) application from the available list. The only innovative aspect of the iPhone is the user interface and that is really perfect, for the rest it's just a materialized old day non substainable marketing concept, blocking technical and functional innovation.

moebius
Feb 27, 2008, 06:43 PM
Another "apple's revenge".

There is no love outside the contract.

Stianu89
Mar 6, 2008, 05:06 AM
Use itunes to restore to 1.1.4 (not update), then use ziphone for the unlock, then the phone should be working again.

To get he iphone into restore mode just hold power and home until the phone turns of, then quickly release the power button and hold the home button. and the phone will show up in recovery mode in itunes! If you already have 1.1.4 just restore it again, and if you are on a earlier firmware just press update and restore!