Apple Geniuses are reportedly unbricking iPhones

[nagromme]

But the correct analogy here would be Apple selling you lemonade, then seeing you're having much more fun with it after spiking it with Bacardi 151 and then pouring sand on the lemonade so you couldn't drink it anymore.

That, and the fact their lemonade would have cost $28 a cup to begin with. But hey, the cup was real pretty.

Actually, the correct analogy would be:

Apple sells lemonade cheaper than any other lemonade--cheaper in fact than some waters! And in a better, more portable AND prettier cup.

They then improve their recipe--tastier than ever and more nutritious. Other lemonade stands make tiny improvements and make buy a whole new glass if you want the new recipe.

But Apple has made a big improvement and offers you a free refill with the new recipe. Furthermore, they have even better recipes in the works, and have announced free refills when those are ready too.

Now, if you have spiked it with Bacardi, the latest recipe makes something undrinkably nasty. Not because Apple took time to make the recipe incompatible with Bacardi, but because they did NOT take time and alter their recipe to make sure it WAS compatible.

So they give you fair and honest warning and a choice: skip the new recipe or skip the Bacardi. Or at the least, you're on your own to wash your old cup really well!

No matter which you choose, you've got better lemonade for less money than the next guy offers.

 

[Leo74]

Just a couple notes of clarifcation:

* Blackberries have their undisputed merits, and are the perfect choice for some people. But no Blackberry has all the features of the iPhone: they have much smaller screens, no multitouch UI, no desktop-class auto-zooming web browser, no powerful OS X platform to build on, far less storage, less talk time, and yet are thicker to carry. They have a different kind of hard-to-use keyboard (no small keyboard is ideal) with the advantage of a familiar feel--coupled with various disadvantages compared to the iPhone's keyboard: no adaptability to different contexts, no tolerance for hitting multiple (tiny) keys at once, and no larger landscape typing mode. Those things aren't about style or fandom, they are major iPhone features than many people quite legitimately appreciate.

Multitouch UI replaces an identical function with more style. It adds no functionality. (Yet. I trust there'll be great things to come with it, though.) The iPod won't have a desktop class web browser until it adds Flash. What it does now my BB does, again with less style. A powerful OSX platform they don't allow you to use except for whatever software they decide you should have is not preferrable to a lesser platform you can customize to your heart's contempt, except, again, for matters of style. Many phones out there have landscape type mode, though not multitouch, true. But the Blackberry typing is extremely adaptable and mistyping is not generally a problem for most people. I'll give you auto zooming, wifi (which some BBs have, mine doesn't) and the fact that the iPhone is cool as hell, sure. Hardly worth $400 until it's more functional, though. I'll get one one day, I really want one. It just doesn't do what my current phone does yet. Sad but true.

* iPhones cost less, not more, than a blackberry--by hundreds of dollars. Any subsidies you get on a smart phone that appears to be cheaper you actually end up paying back every month.

Nah. It doesn't. Mine cost $150 with a one-year contract and I pay exactly what iPhone users pay with unlimited data, free roaming and 1,000 minutes. And that was a year ago. Today, I could get it free with a contract. And let's not forget push email. That is a huge advantage as well.

And a question:

How many times has blackberry upgraded your phone to add significant software features? This isn't the last time Apple will do so--they changed their accounting practices specifically to allow ongoing free software additions to the iPhone.

Since I had it, there have been 3 upgrades that I know of. One just last Tuesday. With sometimes very valuable added features to me (added language dictionaries was huge,) sometmes not so much. Pain in the ass too, because you pretty much need a Windows machine to run the updates, but that's between BB and Apple. If you count third party applications as added functions, though, that would number in the hundreds, many of which are indeed free.

 

[sligo]

its a reach crike, but thanks for going the distance with the car analogy

As a software guy, i dont think the car analogy really holds up because a bios is an instruction set and not a car. imagine a recipe for making cake to use a different analogy. you may find that substituting an ingredient works fine as long as all the other ingredients remain in the same proportion. Once those ingredients change, if your substitute does not change in a corresponding amount, the recipe could be ruined.

a bios is like that. i may ask the code to jump to specific locations. if something is out of whack at that location because you have messed with it, who knows what the results might be. including bricking. Now if the bricking is due to an unintentional side effect of not accounting for that portion of the code to be different, then I have no problem with it. if the bricking is due to some specific logic that was inserted to force bricking under hacked conditions, then i have a big problem with it. However, we can not assume that it was maliciously done. At least I have not heard anyone state that officially.

 

[Leo74]

my naive attempt to fix the analogy

You buy a "car" from the manufacturer, in which they tell you (license agreement) that you cannot "change the wheels" and still be covered under warranty.

You change the wheels anyway and the car continues to work (maybe even better than before).

Then, the car manufacturer releases an update in which a few new features are added, but here's the catch, you still have to be under warranty to get the upgrades.

Next, you decide you want the upgrades anyway and take the car into the manufacturer. The manufacturer says, up front, if you have changed your wheels there is a strong possiblity that your car will no longer work, and if you have changed those wheels you are no longer under warranty. Most importantly, they tell you: YOU DON'T HAVE TO UPDATE (you will simply not get the new features).

You decide to upgrade anyway, and guess what? The car stops working. Seems like they did their best to let you know what was happening.

Yup. You got me there. If I had hacked one and hacked it, I'd wait for the next hack before upgrading it.

In the end, I it's a matter of whether Apple is bricking phones on purpose as retaliation or as an indirect result of a necessary/useful update. No one besides Apple and maybe AT&T knows that. Someone might find out if they take them to court. My utopian mind just thinks they could do whatever they want with a phone you bought if they don't like how you're using it, but only after they give you your money back.

 

[Leo74]

Actually, the correct analogy would be:

Apple sells lemonade cheaper than any other lemonade--cheaper in fact than some waters! And in a better, more portable AND prettier cup.

They then improve their recipe--tastier than ever and more nutritious. Other lemonade stands make tiny improvements and make buy a whole new glass if you want the new recipe.

But Apple has made a big improvement and offers you a free refill with the new recipe. Furthermore, they have even better recipes in the works, and have announced free refills when those are ready too.

Now, if you have spiked it with Bacardi, the latest recipe makes something undrinkably nasty. Not because Apple took time to make the recipe incompatible with Bacardi, but because they did NOT take time and alter their recipe to make sure it WAS compatible.

So they give you fair and honest warning and a choice: skip the new recipe or skip the Bacardi. Or at the least, you're on your own to wash your old cup really well!

No matter which you choose, you've got better lemonade for less money than the next guy offers.

Except for the cheaper (that doesn't hold up except with a few cherry picked examples) and more portable (the iPhone is pretty huge in comparison, I think we all agree) parts, I actually agree. To ignore the warning is just kind of dumb. My problem is with the possibility that they may be bricking expensive devices intentionally as retaliation instead of as a side effect to a necessary upgrade. Maybe they aren't. No one will know until the courts duke it out, if they do. If they're not, though, I have no criticism. Their ability to update their software how they see fit shouldn't be hindered by concerns about how it'll work with hacked devices. If they start making it so that you cannot use the phone without upgrades, then yes, that would be a huge problem.

I still have a bit of a problem regardless of all that with the fact they're trying to hinder your ability to install software, though. It doesn't make sense to me on an iPhone any more than it would make sense on a Mac.

 

[tristan]

I know that in Belgium its illegal to sell mobile phones that are locked to a single network. Needless to say we wont be seeing a official iPhone release in Belgium anytime soon.

The whole concept of locking kills the phone aftermarket - when I lived in Singapore, you could often upgrade your phone by just waiting until one of those uberwealthy A/X-clad Chinese kids bought the phone that was released just yesterday, and then offering him SGD$120 for his old one. Then you give your old phone to your little brother because he got good grades. It's the circle of life, man.

 

[nagromme]

What it does now my BB does, again with less style.

Just be aware that you have chosen to DEFINE usability, ease-of-use, speed-of-use, screen size/readability, 8GB storage, etc. as "style." I think you'll agree, in all unbiased honesty, that it's equally valid to file those things under "productivity."

A powerful OSX platform they don't allow you to use except for whatever software they decide you should have is not preferrable to a lesser platform you can customize to your heart's contempt, except, again, for matters of style.

Given that "style" includes such useless things as mass storage, and a big screen I will agree. The iPhone has many advantages over other phones, but they too have their own advantages, and official 3rd-party support is a very big one--not to everyone, if the iPhone already does what they need built-in or via Web apps, but very big to you, and very big to me! Especially big if those 3rd party apps are high-quality, operate in a consistent and logical manner, and almost never crash or otherwise diminish the basic functioning of the phone. (Unfortunately, those are often not the case with Blackberry, Win CE, Linux and Symbian.)

The iPhone would (and I sincerely hope WILL) be a better platform when 3rd party development (different from unlocking) is officially supported.

But as I see it, Apple CANNOT practically support 3rd part apps yet. The platform and its dev tools are still young and still in flux. It makes no sense to give developers tools and then give them a constantly-moving target. It makes no sense to try to offer developers AND users good support when apps are breaking all over.

Apple should offer official 3rd party support only when the platform is more stabilized. Maybe 3 months, maybe 12? The day will come when official developer support IS practical, and then Apple may decide to go for it or not. I hope we keep up the pressure so they make the right choice!

But there's no way the iPhone could make a practical platform for officially-supported 3rd-party apps this soon. It would be a nightmare for Apple AND for developers AND--most importantly--for users.

Whether apps broke left and right, or Apple let themselves be hamstrung and not make changes to the OS--either way, we'd lose.

Nah. It doesn't. Mine cost $150 with a one-year contract and I pay exactly what iPhone users pay with unlimited data, free roaming and 1,000 minutes. And that was a year ago. Today, I could get it free with a contract. And let's not forget push email. That is a huge advantage as well.

That IS indeed a very good deal. No argument there. Pretty much unheard of for a highly-capable smart phone in my searching. Free with no subsidy and no hidden gotchas? Which model was that? The specs match an iPhone in all but style?

You say that in order to find a smart phone with similar specs that is NOT cheaper than an iPhone (phone AND plan taken into account) that I'd have to "cherry pick" expensive phones. I've searched and actually not turned up cheaper phones that match the iPhone's talk time, storage capacity, WiFi support, and screen resolution. Now, I know you call those things "style"--so maybe that's why you're finding cheaper models that "match" the iPhone's specs?

(To be most clear--I have searched in the US, mainly using carrier sites and Amazon deals.)

(the iPhone is pretty huge in comparison, I think we all agree)

Compared to which model smart phone? The iPhone is among the smallest out there, especially if you only count phones with some kind of alpha keyboard. And even when iPhone has a larger surface (put to good use, obviously), it's thinner--making it easier to pocket than a thick device with a small face.

Certainly, calling the iPhone "pretty huge" in comparison to any other fully-capable smart phone is an exaggeration. SOME are smaller (with a high price in talk time and screen res), but most are larger.

I still have a bit of a problem regardless of all that with the fact they're trying to hinder your ability to install software, though. It doesn't make sense to me on an iPhone any more than it would make sense on a Mac.

See above. The Mac is a much more mature platform, not changing and growing (and being debugged) as we speak, to the same extent the mobile OS X platform is. And a computer is not a phone--not even a smart phone. A smart phone can do all the basics right out of the box and still be highly useful, depending on the purchaser's needs/wants. A computer that did only what came in the box would not meet that same standard.

In short, it's NECESSARY to delay 3rd party apps, and also acceptable in the market.

It does mean the iPhone, however great a buy it is today, can be much more in future. There is hope, so let's keep the pressure on Apple to make that hope turn into real dev tools

I disagree that Apple is TRYING to hinder 3rd-party apps. They are not trying to SUPPORT them (for good reasons at the moment) but they have said they will not interfere with that intentionally, and that seems like a reasonable stance to believe. They have little incentive to spend their time and money stopping 3rd parties, when those 3rd parties do nothing to hurt Apple's bottom line. SUPPORTING them would be a nightmare of course. It's very reasonable to make the 3rd parties do all the work of maintaining compatibility--until such time as 3rd party development is officially supported. (I expect that the affected 3rd parties will do that work, and get things working again after this update.)

Don't forget the distinction between Apple "allowing" a 3rd-part addition, vs. Apple testing, debugging, and changing their OWN software for the sake of a 3rd-party addition.

Regardless, I agree that the Blackberry is right now a better choice for YOU--and for many others. Just as the iPhone is the far better choice for some, including a vast number of consumers would would never have gotten good value from any previous smart phone.

 

[question fear]

Nagromme, +1billion for your incredibly well written post.

 

[Leo74]

Just be aware that you have chosen to DEFINE usability, ease-of-use, speed-of-use, screen size/readability, 8GB storage, etc. as "style." I think you'll agree, in all unbiased honesty, that it's equally valid to file those things under "productivity."

Very true. How we define things is always arguable. By the same token, with unbiased honesty one could not define the iPhone as "better" because it may have better and worse features than many competitors. It's not with unbiased honesty that many detractors of the competition compare the phones either, though. But you're right. It's all relative to each person's needs/wants.

But there's no way the iPhone could make a practical platform for officially-supported 3rd-party apps this soon. It would be a nightmare for Apple AND for developers AND--most importantly--for users.

Whether apps broke left and right, or Apple let themselves be hamstrung and not make changes to the OS--either way, we'd lose.

Totally agree there as well. I have no problem with Apple developing at their pace without having to account for all sorts of undefined variables. I would have a problem if they were looking to brick phones intentionally, however, just because someone is trying to develop themselves. But that's wild speculation.

That IS indeed a very good deal. No argument there. Pretty much unheard of for a highly-capable smart phone in my searching. Free with no subsidy and no hidden gotchas? Which model was that? The specs match an iPhone in all but style?

The specs are very different. I have a Pearl. Small screen (which comes with the advantage of a very small footprint, and yeah, I agree the large screen is put to very good use,) only 2 GB of storage at this point (but upgradeable, which teh iPhone isn't,) no wifi (which is awesome on the iPhone,) and not a full keyboard (which is a problem to many. I've gotten quite good at the compact QWERTY.) But it has many huge advantages as well, such as the ability to install software that addresses my needs/wants, a comparable camera with a flash (that one I could live without anyway, but it's there,) push email, use as a tethered modem (that alone is an iPhone deal breaker for me, or have they fixed it?,) the fact that even with push email the battery goes on for days (I'm sure it wouldn't if I used video more often,) etc. So, each side has their own, but dollar per dollar, I think I'm still better off where I am. When that changes, I'll be switching. I'm pretty well jealous of the iPhone. Just wish it did more for me.

As far as plan charges, however, what I pay is what T-Mobile would charge for any BB, though. So, unless the device cost the same or more as the iPhone, moneywise I'd still come out ahead with a better phone than mine, since I have almost twice the minutes and nationwide free roaming. So I don't think saying the iPhone is cheaper is very accurate either.

Anyhow, I actually agree with you on the core points here, and I never meant to hijack this thread to make it about Blackberry vs. iPhones anyway. So, let's just leave it at we each have something we think is better because it better serves our needs/wants. (I still got it cheaper, though. )

Taking off now for a much needed two-week vacation. Hopefully more exciting Apple news when I'm back.

 

[nagromme]

Just a quick Yes Please, in response to modem tethering!

I do think our agreements are larger than our disagreements.

 

[Leo74]

See above. The Mac is a much more mature platform, not changing and growing (and being debugged) as we speak, to the same extent the mobile OS X platform is. And a computer is not a phone--not even a smart phone. A smart phone can do all the basics right out of the box and still be highly useful, depending on the purchaser's needs/wants. A computer that did only what came in the box would not meet that same standard.

I take it that was an Edit?

Again, I totally agree. My point is, we can't count the OSX platform as a definitive advantage until they make good use of it. If you're right and this is a matter of 'not ye' versus 'not ever,' we're totally on the same page.

 

[Leo74]

Just a quick Yes Please, in response to modem tethering!

I do think our agreements are larger than our disagreements.

Sweet. I'm one step closer to that iPhone, then.

 

[nagromme]

I take it that was an Edit?

Again, I totally agree. My point is, we can't count the OSX platform as a definitive advantage until they make good use of it. If you're right and this is a matter of 'not ye' versus 'not ever,' we're totally on the same page.

Yes. OS X is an advantage now in certain ways (like the excellent UI)--but a potentially even BIGGER advantage is as a platform for the future, not the present.

Which does nothing to help someone who has certain needs today that an iPhone can't meet!

Here's hoping the iPhone becomes good enough for both of us one day. Myself, I won't touch one without 16GB storage built-in. I want a single mass volume of space with no card-juggling

(And I have plenty of other wants that aren't quite needs, such as: GPS, Flash--not Flash Lite, a bigger headphone jack, storage filesystem browseable on BOTH computer and phone, and video capture.)

 

[akac]

I have a Pearl. Small screen (which comes with the advantage of a very small footprint, and yeah, I agree the large screen is put to very good use,) only 2 GB of storage at this point (but upgradeable, which teh iPhone isn't,)

Upgradeable to what? Most phones don't support more than 2 or 4GB SD cards. Just a point...

 

[Tomato910]

I'm sorry, but WTF?

How on earth can a class action lawsuit be coming?

Legally, Apple have doing nothing wrong. Customers with 'bricked' phones have purposefully and knowingly broken their license agreement by installing software or hacking their phone, which Apple clearly state that doing so will invalidate the warranty.

Consider the following scenarios:

1. Someone purchases from eBay, who hasn't broken any agreement or signed any contract.

2. I'm allowed to run whatever software I want on my computer, the iPhone is just a computer, the software is what makes it an 'iPhone' (Just like an iPod is just software). What gives Apple to right to block me from running what I want on my computer?

3. It's unreasonable to maliciously damage people's phones. What would make more sense and be more reasonable, is if they reverted unlocked iPhones back to their locked state.

I've seen lawsuits filed, and won, for a lot less of an offence than this.

 

[question fear]

Consider the following scenarios:

1. Someone purchases from eBay, who hasn't broken any agreement or signed any contract.

2. I'm allowed to run whatever software I want on my computer, the iPhone is just a computer, the software is what makes it an 'iPhone' (Just like an iPod is just software). What gives Apple to right to block me from running what I want on my computer?

3. It's unreasonable to maliciously damage people's phones. What would make more sense and be more reasonable, is if they reverted unlocked iPhones back to their locked state.

I've seen lawsuits filed, and won, for a lot less of an offence than this.

Except Apple went out of their way to warn you of the tradeoff. They spent time and effort spreading the word that if you chose to use option 2 in your example, they were not sure of compatibility. They released a well publicized statement about it. And right before you update, in BIG BOLD LETTERS they explain the same thing.

And in that same press release they answered #3 as well. They aren't targetting phones with hacks, they're simply saying the hacks are built on firmware that is changing, and they may not work. Since the hacks relied on breaking the software to get in, it's reasonable to assume that Apple would want to close any security holes.

Apple spent a lot of time declaring they were not responsible. My guess is they consulted their lawyers and determined there was a certain way to word their declaration and spread it around that a reasonable person would realize their actions were putting their phone at risk.

Finally, didn't 90% of the unlocked phones go back to being locked? Everywhere I've read people who have tested it say they get an "incorrect SIM" message unless they have the original ATT SIM around.

 

[nagromme]

Consider the following scenarios:

1. Someone purchases from eBay, who hasn't broken any agreement or signed any contract.

2. I'm allowed to run whatever software I want on my computer, the iPhone is just a computer, the software is what makes it an 'iPhone' (Just like an iPod is just software). What gives Apple to right to block me from running what I want on my computer?

3. It's unreasonable to maliciously damage people's phones. What would make more sense and be more reasonable, is if they reverted unlocked iPhones back to their locked state.

I've seen lawsuits filed, and won, for a lot less of an offence than this.

When you purchase from eBay and hack your phone, Apple is under no obligation to give you free software updates that are compatible with your hacks. Avoid the hacks or avoid the updates, or wait for people to make them work nicely together. It's not Apple's problem to make that happen.

There is no evidence of Apple "maliciously damaging" people's phones. There IS evidence that SOME hacked phones have serious problems with the latest software update. No surprise there. The platform changed, so things may break. Apple gave repeated fair warning of this--hardly malicious.

 

[techyjoe]

Read the software license agreement. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf

It doesn't matter where you purchase the iPhone, if you use it you agree to the Software License Agreement. You can own the hardware but you are licensing the software (which includes the boot rom as per the license agreement). Apple has every right to disable their software which is in place on your hardware if you fail to comply with the software license agreement. The only way around it is to develop your own firmware and operating system for your hardware. Have fun with that.

Consider the following scenarios:

1. Someone purchases from eBay, who hasn't broken any agreement or signed any contract.

2. I'm allowed to run whatever software I want on my computer, the iPhone is just a computer, the software is what makes it an 'iPhone' (Just like an iPod is just software). What gives Apple to right to block me from running what I want on my computer?

3. It's unreasonable to maliciously damage people's phones. What would make more sense and be more reasonable, is if they reverted unlocked iPhones back to their locked state.

I've seen lawsuits filed, and won, for a lot less of an offence than this.

 

[PowerFullMac]

Read the software license agreement. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf

It doesn't matter where you purchase the iPhone, if you use it you agree to the Software License Agreement. You can own the hardware but you are licensing the software (which includes the boot rom as per the license agreement). Apple has every right to disable their software which is in place on your hardware if you fail to comply with the software license agreement. The only way around it is to develop your own firmware and operating system for your hardware. Have fun with that.

...And iPhone Linux is born.

 

[Tomato910]

When you purchase from eBay and hack your phone, Apple is under no obligation to give you free software updates that are compatible with your hacks.

If someone buys an unlocked iPhone from eBay, how can Apple block their phone considering they haven't broken any laws, rules, conditions or terms of service? They haven't agreed to any contracts, all they know is it's unlocked and it's 100% legal to be unlocked.

Except Apple went out of their way to warn you of the tradeoff.

Not really, Apple didn't start saying 'yeah, we're going to brick your phones' until about 2 weeks ago. Infact, there was a few months gap in between with (hundreds of?) thousands of people buying 100% legal unlocked iPhones.

 

[question fear]

If someone buys an unlocked iPhone from eBay, how can Apple block their phone considering they haven't broken any laws, rules, conditions or terms of service? They haven't agreed to any contracts, all they know is it's unlocked and it's 100% legal to be unlocked.



Not really, Apple didn't start saying 'yeah, we're going to brick your phones' until about 2 weeks ago. Infact, there was a few months gap in between with (hundreds of?) thousands of people buying 100% legal unlocked iPhones.

Ok, first of all, there was a gap of about 3-4 weeks. Second of all, I'd say warning people a few weeks ago that they aren't supporting the hacks, along with the released press release (with a two day lead time on the upgrade) plus the GIANT bolded letters that pop up and warn you PRIOR to applying the upgrade are pretty decent warnings. Would you prefer Steve Jobs show up and personally explain it to you?

 

[bigandy]

Hacking the phone to install third party apps may be against the end user agreement as well (depending on what that software does). so in the example you site, there is no difference in that scenario. you have violated the terms of service either way.

To answer your question specifically, If I bought OSX, I think I should be allowed to run it wherever I please. I dont expect apple to service me if I do so, but at the same time, I also expect them to stay out of my way. Obviously if i hack their product and then try to resell it, or even give it away for free, then they are incurring a loss, and they have every right and obligation to come after me. For my own personal use on the other hand, if I paid for the product, let it be mine. I am not leasing it. if i chose to pave my driveway with the CD's, then thats my choice. If I spend my time reverse engineering the bios so i can run it on my non proprietary hardware, then more power to me. Its mine, and I paid for it.

My point is that apple only stands to benefit from this community of users. they are not liable or responsible for users who violate the ToS, and their hardware product can be received by a larger market without apple violating any agreements it has with their partners. It is not in apples best interest to pursue litigation, or even purposefully causing unlocked phones to be disabled.

As with all commercial software you do not 'own' OS X, or the iPhone software. You 'license' it. By purchasing the product you are agreeing to the terms and conditions of this license. If you break these terms, in many jurisdictions, you can be prosecuted.

Unless I am very much mistaken, the same licensing exists for the iPhone software.

In software licenses, you are granted only the rights you read in the agreement. Nowhere in the iPhone software agreement does it say anything about giving the end user permission to use third party applications.

The software license is the same as with most computer software - using it, or installing it, is an act of agreement. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of that license you should seek a refund for the product.

 

[Tomato910]

Ok, first of all, there was a gap of about 3-4 weeks. Second of all, I'd say warning people a few weeks ago that they aren't supporting the hacks, along with the released press release (with a two day lead time on the upgrade) plus the GIANT bolded letters that pop up and warn you PRIOR to applying the upgrade are pretty decent warnings. Would you prefer Steve Jobs show up and personally explain it to you?

Giant press release? I keep up to date with the news, it was on Digg and it made it on BBC News website, but not as a top story. Would the average person know about it? Probably not. (I live in the UK, maybe it was a lot bigger in the US, but I don't remember it ever being on the television and I watch the news pretty much every day.)

Every Apple TOS has bold letters, I've never read any of them, you could call me stupid for not reading through every TOS I've ever accepted when updating applications on my computer, but I think most people don't sit there and read it for 15 minutes.

By the way, I'm computer literate and I'm not pissed off at Apple for blocking my phone because I knew not to update. I know people who weren't informed and don't know about the whole contractual obligations things and were blocked. That's why I'm pissed off at Apple, they could've easily reversed an unlock, but instead they chose to screw around with it and turn it into a brick.

Is it legal and are Apple allowed to do it? Yes, probably.
Could Apple have achieved the same thing (getting rid of unlocked iPhones) but not ****ed up peoples phones? Definitely.

 

[nagromme]

If someone buys an unlocked iPhone from eBay, how can Apple block their phone considering they haven't broken any laws, rules, conditions or terms of service? They haven't agreed to any contracts, all they know is it's unlocked and it's 100% legal to be unlocked.

Apple can't--and won't--block their service. BUT Apple will not provide them with software updates either, and is under no obligation to do so. eBay buyers should take note: that hacked/unlocked phone may break no laws, but it also has no warranty or Apple support, and if the seller claimed otherwise, then the seller's a crook. If the seller has not informed the buyer of the exact nature and limitations of what is being sold, then the seller has deceived the buyer.

If the user tries to have their cake and eat it too--buy a hacked phone with no Apple support AND still try to get Apple software updates, IN SPITE of clear warnings, then they take their chances.

I know people who weren't informed and don't know about the whole contractual obligations things and were blocked. That's why I'm pissed off at Apple, they could've easily reversed an unlock, but instead they chose to screw around with it and turn it into a brick.

I'm not sure how anyone could NOT be informed about the risk, when a note comes up on the screen in big bold letters--not hidden in the readme but right at the top--when you attempt to install the update.

As for Apple being able to "easily" reverse an unlock--no. In order to reverse an unlock Apple has to at the very least write software to test for the unlock, and at the most they have to understand how that unlock works, AND warn users that a phone reset will erase their personal data, which is still not going to please people. All of this means Apple spending THEIR development time to make some other company's hack work. That is NOT a road Apple can start down. You could say "well, maybe they can't do that programming every time, but they could do it for now and then stop later"--but that's not going to please people either.

Apple has no incentive to intentionally brick phones. They'd much rather that phone go back to working with AT&T. Bricking a phone is a side-effect, not the goal. The goal is a software update, coupled (possibly) with meeting the terms of Apple's agreements with AT&T. (Who also does not benefit from a "bricked" phone.)

If Apple had truly decided to systematically turn phones into bricks, then they'd brick them ALL--not just some of them. It's comforting sometimes to look for a dark conspiracy, but I don't see enough evidence of one. (The fact that all carriers aren't automatically, universally compatible is dark enough--but not Apple's doing. And Apple's acceptance of an exclusive deal--which is common with phones--was done for VERY good reasons. Apple asked a lot from AT&T--which means AT&T could ask a lot in return.)

You're right that Apple COULD have done testing and programming to make sure hacked phones did not brick. But it would have made little sense for them to start down that road--and nobody ever expected them to.

 

[Tomato910]

Apple has no incentive to intentionally brick phones. They'd much rather that phone go back to working with AT&T. Bricking a phone is a side-effect, not the goal. The goal is a software update, coupled (possibly) with meeting the terms of Apple's agreements with AT&T. (Who also does not benefit from a "bricked" phone.)

You're right that Apple COULD have done testing and programming to make sure hacked phones did not brick. But it would have made little sense for them to start down that road--and nobody ever expected them to.

You say that Apple have no incentive to intentionally brick phones, then that Apple could have made sure that the phones didn't brick. Well, call me stupid but when 100,000+ people have unlocked iPhones, I think Apple does kind of have a responsibility in that, they could have tested the new firmware on an unlocked iPhone to see what happened.

Legally they don't owe these users anything, but ethically, this is still 100,000 customers, why not spend, $75,000 on developing a way around bricking the iPhones but relocking instead, as of those customers who then revert back to AT&T, any money lost on developing will be made in Apple's cut of the call charges.

You probably won't agree with me, but see it from that point of view. 100,000 customers (a lot of which are the most passionate Apple customers) is no small deal.