Apple Geniuses are reportedly unbricking iPhones

[mashoutposse]

But you couldn't be bothered to exchange the phone BEFORE you hacked it. FACT.

You were not "entitled" to an exchange. You were entitled to a phone that worked as Apple and AT&T intended. So they could very well have simply taken it in for repair. If you bothered to read the warranty, Apple has, at its option, the right to repair or replace.

And once you hacked it, you were perfectly willing to hand in a phone you KNEW to be outside Apple's warranty--by your own admission--for a new one. That, sir, comes very very close to what we call "fraud."

Is there any reason for your intensely selective reading? "It[the fault] was one of those things where you never really know it's gone or if it's isolated because it doesn't appear consistently (or often) at all. So, when it reared its ugly head again even after modification, I felt that I was entitled to an exchange since the hacks obviously had nothing to do with it."

Yes, I'm entitled to a phone that works as Apple intended. For instance, if the work they performed yesterday simply relocked the phone and disabled third party apps, I would not be typing all of this today. In fact, I bought another unit on the spot for replacement, and it turned out to be 1.1.1 even though I had the full assurance of the salesperson that it would be 1.0.2. Even though that really burns, I'm not going to go back to them tomorrow to say that I deserve a return with no restocking fees because I can't put Apollo IM on my phone anymore.

 

[Mydel]

Guys!! I've read all the post and we clearly have two parties here. One saying its your fault and you deserve it and second saying that Apple has no right to brick your phone.
I will cut to the chase. My phone is modded and unlocked and no I wasnt so stupid to apply the 1.1.1 update and not gonna do this, BUT I think Apple has NO right to kill your phone with an update. You can't convince me otherwise so lets not discuss that issue here.
What I wanted to mention is completely different story. I think /my opinion-cant prove it for now/ that Apple is browsing your files when applying update. We killed unmodded phone when updating on my computer /I have jailbrake etc installed/. After exchanging the phone in apple store we again killed him when updating to 1.1.1....But when updating on other computer /"clean"/ everything went OK. And if what I thing is true...than Apple is waaaay out off the line. And that would scream for legal actions...

 

[uaaerospace]

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.

You neglect that fact that you don't just by a product. You but a license agreement in addition. As much as you want to ignore it, you are legally bound by the license agreement when you use a product.

That aside, your OS X example doesn't hold water. Apple isn't standing in the way of iPhone hacking. If you hacked OS X to run on a PC, would you go crying to Apple if the an update to OS X broke your hack? No, you'd go back to the drawing board and figure out why your hack didn't work.

Apple has no obligation to the people who unlocked their iPhones. Sure, they could be nice and release a relock utility, but they are under NO obligation to do so. If you trusted the hackers to unlock your phone, I suggest you go back to them to fix it before you try to run the update. Don't cry foul to Apple.

 

[uaaerospace]

What I wanted to mention is completely different story. I think /my opinion-cant prove it for now/ that Apple is browsing your files when applying update. We killed unmodded phone when updating on my computer /I have jailbrake etc installed/. After exchanging the phone in apple store we again killed him when updating to 1.1.1....But when updating on other computer /"clean"/ everything went OK. And if what I thing is true...than Apple is waaaay out off the line. And that would scream for legal actions...

Before you lay down an accusation such as this, provide the proof. Without proof, this is the same as me saying my roommate shot JFK. Sure..it's possible.

 

[Naimfan]

Is there any reason for your intensely selective reading?

Yes, I'm trying to point out that once you hacked the iPhone Apple's obligation to you ended. RTFW! But you were in too much of a hurry to hack it to be bothered, and now you don't want to deal with the consequences.

BUT I think Apple has NO right to kill your phone with an update.

Apple didn't kill a single phone with an update. Anyone who hacked a phone is who killed it.

 

[mashoutposse]

Yes, I'm trying to point out that once you hacked the iPhone Apple's obligation to you ended. RTFW!

So, hacking automatically absolves Apple of liability for any and all defects that existed prior to modification?

Again, are you insane?

Just because someone writes something in a contract doesn't make it true. Americans and American enterprises still must abide by federal, state, and local laws. What you are suggesting runs contrary to the law.

 

[Naimfan]

So, hacking automatically absolves Apple of liability for any and all defects that existed prior to modification?

Effectively, yes. Contact an attorney near you if you don't think so.

Just because someone writes something in a contract doesn't make it true. Americans and American enterprises still must abide by federal, state, and local laws. What you are suggesting runs contrary to the law.

What law, specifically? I'll wait until you provide a citation.....

 

[JimmyDreams]

So, hacking automatically absolves Apple of liability for any and all defects that existed prior to modification?

Again, are you insane?

Just because someone writes something in a contract doesn't make it true. Americans and American enterprises still must abide by federal, state, and local laws. What you are suggesting runs contrary to the law.

Wait a sec...who's insane here?

Apple makes a product that does what they advertise. They support the product with software updates etc. Warranties are valid and covered. No one can argue or insinuate lawsuits without REALLY stretching the truth.

Now, someone chooses to open their product (warranty VOID (and all Apple 'liability' ends there). Someone chooses to hack into the device using NON-APPLE software and/or methods. Warranty VOID (and no liability since you're clearly using the device for unintended purposes.)

Can you sue Apple? Maybe if by hacking it it causes you physical injury. But sue them for loss of use? Explain how you can allege Apple has a responsibility for that? If I take my car and pour water in the gas tank, can I sue BMW for me being stupid?

Apples' liability is only to making a product that doesn't cause injury. Loss of use due to abuse and neglect and unofficial 'maintenance' is your fault. Not Apple's.

 

[mashoutposse]

What law, specifically? I'll wait until you provide a citation.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

Wait a sec...who's insane here?

Apple makes a product that does what they advertise. They support the product with software updates etc. Warranties are valid and covered. No one can argue or insinuate lawsuits without REALLY stretching the truth.

Now, someone chooses to open their product (warranty VOID (and all Apple 'liability' ends there). Someone chooses to hack into the device using NON-APPLE software and/or methods. Warranty VOID (and no liability since you're clearly using the device for unintended purposes.)

Can you sue Apple? Maybe if by hacking it it causes you physical injury. But sue them for loss of use? Explain how you can allege Apple has a responsibility for that? If I take my car and pour water in the gas tank, can I sue BMW for me being stupid?

Apples' liability is only to making a product that doesn't cause injury. Loss of use due to abuse and neglect and unofficial 'maintenance' is your fault. Not Apple's.

You clearly have not read the whole story, so here's a quick recap:

Phone has a defect that existed before hacking. Defect is subtle, so there was no real way to know whether it was isolated or not. Defect shows up again, even after hacking. HERE IS THE PROBLEM: I bring in a working phone (minus defect) to Apple for replacement. They perform work on it without my consent or knowledge and end up bricking the phone. They hand it back to me inoperational.

 

[Naimfan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

Spare me. Does not apply in this case, as you would discover if you bothered to read the act itself.

Since you clearly have zero understanding of the law, I will suggest you consult with an attorney licensed in your state. If you tell me what state you are in, I will even look some up to recommend to you who practice in the field.

 

[Mydel]

Apple didn't kill a single phone with an update. Anyone who hacked a phone is who killed it.

Get a grip! they did it on purpose, and you know it. Thats a "byrn ground" tactic to scare people from hacking

 

[Mydel]

Before you lay down an accusation such as this, provide the proof. Without proof, this is the same as me saying my roommate shot JFK. Sure..it's possible.

I just report you what I saw. Could be coincidence. thats why I said IF ....

 

[gr8fl4295]

I just went into the apple store on michigan ave in chicago....
went up to the genious bar, and asked the guy if he could reset my unlocked iphone to factory settings. He looked me straight in the eyes and said there was not one thing he could do for me. I do hope they figure something out soon. I want to switch to AT&T!

 

[sibruk]

Once again people are making legal claims with apparently no knowledge of the laws.

We know there are a lot of people out there that are just agravated. That is fine, you want to bitch, that is fine. But to make statements as to the legality of their actions and the rights of the hacker with zero laws to back you, serves no-one and only confuces others that can't tell the difference between a rant and the law.

If you turned the power on on the the device you used it. If you opened the box you intended to use it. If you did not like the conditions of the contract you had the ability to return it un-open and also after opening for a fee. The contract language is clear for the vast majority of the people. Define "IS".

I'm going to ignore the specific accusations of simple bitching (which I assure you, I'm not). I'm just quite surprised by the number of postings here which blindly take the side of one of the world's largest corporations without a moment's consideration for consumer rights. The prevalence of this attitude must surely be an American thing? I can tell you for sure that people won't be quite so "fanboy" about this in the UK when Apple release their product in the UK in a few weeks time. If they start pulling this "all your base are belong to us" attitude in the UK, rendering phones unusable and then not offering a way for people to restore to a situation where they could use the phone legally "in the way it was intended", there will be a major backlash from consumers in the UK.

You're quite right that I do not know what the law states in the USA, or the UK for that matter. I am not a lawyer. But I'm fairly sure that I can work out at which point I would be entering into any agreement or contract.

An interesting point... Do you actually accept any terms of a software licence when you open the iPhone or start using it? Are you at any point told you are entering into a licence? Eg. when you open a Windows/MacOS installer, you usually have to break a seal which says "by breaking this seal, you accept the terms...". Or you might have to accept the terms of a licence when you install a piece of software by clicking "I agree".

I have had various cell phones over the years and I don't at any point remember having to agree to any terms relating to the software that was pre-installed on the device. Sure, you'll often find in the warranty for the device that your warranty is null and void if you use the phone in a way that "it isn't designed for". But I'm specifically asking "do you accept a terms of use at any point?" Please tell me if you do. I don't know, I haven't seen an iPhone, let alone the packaging for one, yet.

The fact that OSX is installed on the iPhone is irrelevant if you don't actually have an opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of accepting any terms of an OSX licence. I don't even give it a second thought what OS is installed on my current cell phone. Most consumers wouldn't even know or be interested that the iPhone runs a version of OSX.

I don't own an iPhone yet. I will be getting one shortly after they are released in the UK. Yes, I will be using it with an official O2 tariff. I might install some third party applications on it but I will not be unlocking it. But I think the majority (yes, majority!) of owners in the UK in a few months time will be using the phone unlocked, if there is still a way of doing it through some software method in a few months time. The fact is that the majority of mobile phones in the UK are used on a "pay as you go" basis. IE. no monthly contract at all.

Yes, I agree that people who are in the know on these matters have been very silly to upgrade to the new 1.1.1 release without checking first that it wasn't going to cause problems with unlocked phones. I wouldn't have done it. But only because I know of the threats Apple has made over the last few weeks. I agree that Apple has been very reasonable about making the big bold text in the software update very prominent. But the fact is that a lot of people don't read anything at all in those onscreen dialogue boxes.

All I'm saying is that I think it would be reasonable of Apple to allow customers with unlocked and now useless iPhones to come into their stores to revert the phone to a usable state. OK, show their knuckles a ruler, make them feel a bit naughty, tut-tut at them... But surely it's got to be in Apple's interest to give customers who have spent $399 on a device an opportunity to use the device with an AT&T/O2 contract from that point on. I would be surprised if Apple would really want to leave that bitter a taste in so many customers' mouths.

I'm really sorry for the long post and thank you if you have spent the time to read it!

 

[mashoutposse]

Spare me. Does not apply in this case, as you would discover if you bothered to read the act itself.

Since you clearly have zero understanding of the law, I will suggest you consult with an attorney licensed in your state. If you tell me what state you are in, I will even look some up to recommend to you who practice in the field.

Goodness gracious, man. Have you yourself even read your iPhone warranty?

Every single exclusion is prefaced by, "This warranty does not apply to damage caused by..." The damage was not "caused by... operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple," or by "...service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider." The defect existed BEFORE modification!

Again, I am definitely entitled to service under their own warranty terms (as well as the law).

 

[PDE]

I'm going to ignore the specific accusations of simple bitching (which I assure you, I'm not). I'm just quite surprised by the number of postings here which blindly take the side of one of the world's largest corporations without a moment's consideration for consumer rights. The prevalence of this attitude must surely be an American thing? I can tell you for sure that people won't be quite so "fanboy" about this in the UK when Apple release their product in the UK in a few weeks time. If they start pulling this "all your base are belong to us" attitude in the UK, rendering phones unusable and then not offering a way for people to restore to a situation where they could use the phone legally "in the way it was intended", there will be a major backlash from consumers in the UK.

You're quite right that I do not know what the law states in the USA, or the UK for that matter. I am not a lawyer. But I'm fairly sure that I can work out at which point I would be entering into any agreement or contract.

An interesting point... Do you actually accept any terms of a software licence when you open the iPhone or start using it? Are you at any point told you are entering into a licence? Eg. when you open a Windows/MacOS installer, you usually have to break a seal which says "by breaking this seal, you accept the terms...". Or you might have to accept the terms of a licence when you install a piece of software by clicking "I agree".

I have had various cell phones over the years and I don't at any point remember having to agree to any terms relating to the software that was pre-installed on the device. Sure, you'll often find in the warranty for the device that your warranty is null and void if you use the phone in a way that "it isn't designed for". But I'm specifically asking "do you accept a terms of use at any point?" Please tell me if you do. I don't know, I haven't seen an iPhone, let alone the packaging for one, yet.

The fact that OSX is installed on the iPhone is irrelevant if you don't actually have an opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of accepting any terms of an OSX licence. I don't even give it a second thought what OS is installed on my current cell phone. Most consumers wouldn't even know or be interested that the iPhone runs a version of OSX.

I don't own an iPhone yet. I will be getting one shortly after they are released in the UK. Yes, I will be using it with an official O2 tariff. I might install some third party applications on it but I will not be unlocking it. But I think the majority (yes, majority!) of owners in the UK in a few months time will be using the phone unlocked, if there is still a way of doing it through some software method in a few months time. The fact is that the majority of mobile phones in the UK are used on a "pay as you go" basis. IE. no monthly contract at all.

Yes, I agree that people who are in the know on these matters have been very silly to upgrade to the new 1.1.1 release without checking first that it wasn't going to cause problems with unlocked phones. I wouldn't have done it. But only because I know of the threats Apple has made over the last few weeks. I agree that Apple has been very reasonable about making the big bold text in the software update very prominent. But the fact is that a lot of people don't read anything at all in those onscreen dialogue boxes.

All I'm saying is that I think it would be reasonable of Apple to allow customers with unlocked and now useless iPhones to come into their stores to revert the phone to a usable state. OK, show their knuckles a ruler, make them feel a bit naughty, tut-tut at them... But surely it's got to be in Apple's interest to give customers who have spent $399 on a device an opportunity to use the device with an AT&T/O2 contract from that point on. I would be surprised if Apple would really want to leave that bitter a taste in so many customers' mouths.

I'm really sorry for the long post and thank you if you have spent the time to read it!

Thank you for injecting reason into all this. People will defend anything it seems,regardless of whether what they defend is bad for them.

NO, the software agreement is only available once you have opened the box, activated the phone and happen to navigate to general - settings - about, at which point there is a 'legal' section that you reach by scrolling down to the very bottom of that list. It's not even visible unless you start scrolling. The regular hardware warranty note is in the box though.

Although I'm not a lawyer either, I've lived and travelled all over the world and know that in many places, people just won't put up with this. Apple's thinks they can do what they do here in the US, but I doubt they will be able to. Time will tell.

Anyway...it's all been discussed and people around here will continue to defend Apple at any cost. That's it.

 

[nagromme]

My phone is modded and unlocked and no I wasnt so stupid to apply the 1.1.1 update and not gonna do this, BUT I think Apple has NO right to kill your phone with an update. You can't convince me otherwise so lets not discuss that issue here.

Right. Apple did NOT take action to kill hacked iPhones.

SOME iPhones were (temporarily) "killed" by Apple's INaction. Apple allowed them to be killed in that they did not do the EXTRA work needed to support hacked phones. (They did do the extra work to warn people.) People with hacked phones have NO right to expect Apple to change their own software to accommodate the hacks--whether that means gently reversing the hacks or some other solution. The hackers are responsible for providing those workarounds, not Apple.

All I'm saying is that I think it would be reasonable of Apple to allow customers with unlocked and now useless iPhones to come into their stores to revert the phone to a usable state.

Agreed. It's in everyone's best interest, including Apple and AT&T. Even the hack-sellers would benefit: it would make people feel more comfortable about hacking their phones, knowing that Apple would pick up the pieces for them if needed.

And it seems Apple IS doing this. I expect this practice to continue.

But Apple canNOT make an official policy of reverting people's phones when hacked. That's spending Apple's money and time and employees solving user-created problems on a large scale. Problems users could avoid by heeding Apple's warning. Apple can't afford to officially pick up the pieces for messed-up hacks.

If Apple does this by reset software, they can't promise that software will work on 100% of all modified phones. If Apple does it in person, it's even more expensive. Either way, it's not a promise Apple can make.

I do agree that the mobile carrier industry (especially in the US) is a mess, and that it's a shame Apple hides legalese in long documents (found online, or in the box, or if you ask, but not on the outside of the box). That's a shame even though every company does it. However the AT&T lock-in and the risks of hacking are made pretty clear.

 

[paymaster]

" But surely it's got to be in Apple's interest to give customers who have spent $399 on a device an opportunity to use the device with an AT&T/O2 contract from that point on. I would be surprised if Apple would really want to leave that bitter a taste in so many customers' mouths."

Exactly. Regardless of whether you think Apple had the right to do what they did, a better question to ask was it the right thing to do. It can not be good business to tick off so many customers. It is certainly not good public relations. Instead of talking about surging sales and great products, the press will be talking about how Apple turned their customers phones into useless bricks and how they have all these outraged customers.

The thing is, they probably didn't have to disable the phones. The hackers were able to make changes without disabling it, do you really think Apple couldn't have done it. Oh, my opinion on it, the phones worked before the update, they didn't after, Apple broke them. And an awful lot of the unlocked phones out there are being used in other countries or areas that do not have AT&T so without the unlocks, these sales would have never happened. Apple benefited from these sales, and happily took their money.

I did not unlock my phone. I have no problem with AT&T. I tried third party apps but didn't really see anything I wanted so I took them off. My phone after the update works fine. I have been a huge fan of Apple but they have made a number of decisions lately that reek of arrogance and a total disregard of some of their biggest supporters. I still love my phone, but Apple has taken the joy away.

I have a feeling that in a week or two, Apple will try to play the hero and come up with something that activates the phones and people will be thanking them for being so kind. Apple will then say "from now on be a good customer and do what you are told."

 

[Naimfan]

Even before modification, it had a software-based fault.

You do realize that there is an express disclaimer of any software warranty, right? If you look at page 16 of the iPhone Important Product Information Guide, under the "Exclusions and Limitations" section, the second sentence.

So if it had a software issue, Apple has disclaimed its liability. Oh, and by the way, how would you know if it was a software or a hardware fault? What, precisely, was the phone doing or not doing?

Sheesh. Get ahold a lawyer licensed in your state who deals with product claims. They will tell you Apple's obligation to you ended the instant you hacked the phone.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

I think this has nothing to do with any license agreement. The fact is that unlocking an iPhone, while probably perfectly legal, messes around with the most sensitive part in the iPhone that you can mess around with, and that is the firmware. If that kind of messing causes any problem, including incompatibility with an Apple firmware upgrade, then that is entirely the customers fault.

In this case, Apple has explicitly mentioned in their warranty that if there is any trouble after you unlock the phone, it is not their problem. However, if you messed with the firmware just for the fun of it (nothing to do with unlocking the phone, no license agreement broken), your warranty would be gone just the same.

 

[techyjoe]

Thank you for injecting reason into all this. People will defend anything it seems,regardless of whether what they defend is bad for them.

NO, the software agreement is only available once you have opened the box, activated the phone and happen to navigate to general - settings - about, at which point there is a 'legal' section that you reach by scrolling down to the very bottom of that list. It's not even visible unless you start scrolling. The regular hardware warranty note is in the box though.

Although I'm not a lawyer either, I've lived and travelled all over the world and know that in many places, people just won't put up with this. Apple's thinks they can do what they do here in the US, but I doubt they will be able to. Time will tell.

Anyway...it's all been discussed and people around here will continue to defend Apple at any cost. That's it.

Yes the SLA is available before activating or even pressing the power button. Look at pg 15 of the Important Product Information Guide packaged in the iPhone box. "Use of iPhone is subject to the iPhone Software License Agreement found at: http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

 

[kdarling]

IIn this case, Apple has explicitly mentioned in their warranty that if there is any trouble after you unlock the phone, it is not their problem.

What? Where? No such explicit mention of unlocking.

Or are you simply pointing out that Apple doesn't warranty any of their software under any circumstances?

Almost none of the people posting in these arguments seem to have read any of the documents involved.

 

[nagromme]

The bottom line is that Apple is never going to help people unlock their phones by saying "go ahead! We'll test, alter, and delay our upgrades for everyone just to make sure they don't harm your hacks--and if any hacks do go bad, we'll bail you out, never fear! So hack away, there's no risk!"

 

[techyjoe]

What? Where? No such explicit mention of unlocking.

Or are you simply pointing out that Apple doesn't warranty any of their software under any circumstances?

Almost none of the people posting in these arguments seem to have read any of the documents involved.

Unlocking falls under the SLA because it is a software modification. Your hardware is not modified in any way by unlocking it with software unlocking methods.

Also, nobody can force Apple to allow a person to use Apple's software after said person violated the SLA. The SLA explicitly states the boot rom, and other embedded software are subject to the SLA.

Not to hard to figure out Apple did a good job of covering their asses.

 

[kdarling]

Unlocking falls under the SLA because it is a software modification. Your hardware is not modified in any way by unlocking it with software unlocking methods.

Yes, thank goodness, someone who understands that Apple can't claim any warranty violation... because there is no software warranty!

Also, nobody can force Apple to allow a person to use Apple's software after said person violated the SLA. The SLA explicitly states the boot rom, and other embedded software are subject to the SLA.

Aye, the mod programmers have violated the disassembly portion. However, this does not necessarily apply to anyone who uses their mod code, since most users aren't capable of doing such violation.

Not to hard to figure out Apple did a good job of covering their asses.

Mild disagreement. I think Apple is hoping they don't get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. I surmise a gentlemen's agreement: that because they gave a warning, the modders will not disclose that the changes were unnecessary.

;-)