Apple Issues Warning on iPhone Unlocking

[LizKat]

I think that is part of the problem, Apple never should of made deals with providers, in the long run that will come back and bite Apple in the butt.

They made deals with providers to get the thing positioned so it can take off the way it has done. And, in the short run here in the USA they can probably sell the iPhone for $40 instead of $400 and still make money off the deal with ATT. Lots of it! Tons of it.

The long run of this will bite Apple in the butt? Apple is doing something else in the long run. It's no use trying to swat at Apple as if it were a parked horsefly. Apple's R&D is far down the road working on God knows what right now.

Apple thinks the world was made round. The competition still thinks it's flat. And just over the horizon is... Apple!, running demos of working prototypes for Steve Jobs.

Don't forget Jobs more or less mocked the idea of phones awhile back, silently absorbed the feedback, then casually popped out the iTunes Phone. Apple lived and learned through that adventure, revamped the iPod line in the meantime, rolled out MacBooks and MBPs and servers and AppleTVs, made iTunes Store into a massively cooler place to hang out, worked on Leopard, opened retail stores....

Right so meanwhile everyone else in the cell biz was back there still tsk-tsking at iTunes Phone, saying see, they can't even DO phone. Sigh of relief. Stick Apple back in the box of marginal problems.

Now the iPhone rolls out. And it's clear Apple flippin' well does know how to do phone after all, and now the b-busters from the competition and from the pseudo-hacking, pseudo-anarchic entitlement community are saying it's being done badly, slowly, restrictively, unfairly, illegally, did I leave anything out? Yah, so poor Apple, poor ATT, stumbling and crying to the bank with their heavy loads of moolah and castigation from all sides. Whaddya, whaddya!

 

[technicolor]

technicolor is suggesting that "if you have an iPhone and are not using At&T's service you are in violation of the TOS". no-one can be required to activate the phone via itunes. so if you don't do so you never see let alone agree to a term that you will use at&t. so it cannot be right that if you have an iphone and do not have an airtime agreement with at&t you are in breach of an agreement.

The keyword is USING. If you want to buy an iPhone as a paperweight for your desk be my guest. If you intend for it to be operational for its intended purpose and to activate all its function the requirements for you are clearly spelled out on the back of the box. But of course you want to play semantics and skirt the issue that is glaringly obvious.

 

[Avatar74]

Ok, couple of things...

Some of you have read and offered your interpretations of the DMCA claiming that Apple can be sued.

It stands to reason that Apple has teams of attorneys and a General Counsel who are also literate, have read the DMCA, and are also versed in enough case and statutory law to know whether they are in any danger or not. These would be the same attorneys who drafted whatever licensing agreements they entered into with both endusers and AT&T in such a manner as to cover their bases with regard to the DMCA. These would be the same attorneys who advise them regularly of the implications of any type of update they plan to release, including updates that may render third-party activities, hacks, workarounds, etc. incompatible with their hardware and/or vice-versa... updates that they have been doing for oh, two or three decades now.

I don't think any of you have grounds to bring a lawsuit against Apple. But just to illustrate the situation a little bit better... allow me to give you a couple examples or scenarios that should bring this into perspective:

Say you're a small business owner and you've released a product that allows someone to balance their checkbook. Now, you're a small business and you don't have the money for a big team of attorneys. Someone 1000 miles away writes a piece of software that allows people to use the program to not only balance their checkbook, but to also organize credits and debits to the account in ways different than you originally designed. Now, you have no direct knowledge of how this person's software works because you don't get out much and haven't really a huge world view you just wrote something that seemed cool at the time.

Let's say then you decide to write an update for YOUR software that inadvertently interferes with this other add-on's functionality. At this point you haven't gone out of your way to knowingly interfere with their actions but could they sue you? Well, depends on the circumstances and I don't know all the case and statutory law considerations... but companies retain lawyers to answer those those kinds of questions. So, what do you do? Well, you might find yourself in a situation where umpteen different mods have been put out there and people who use your software start suing you left and right because your software doesn't work. You're a little guy, can't afford lawyers... this could entirely wipe out your business, your life savings, and wipe out your not-so-outrageous dream of just making enough money to some day pay off your mortgage.

Are you beginning to see the problem? I know this is an example of the little guy... but in principle our laws should not be differently applied just because of the size, or lack thereof, of the entity in question. In both cases, this guy and Apple cannot be held responsible for what happens when you as a consumer decide to take a risk installing third-party modifications that could very well irreparably screw something up whenever the company decides to make significant modifications to the product.

That being said, companies that are large targets for lawsuits and have legal resources to do so take every opportunity to cover their ass with regard to such updates. While it's entirely possible that Apple did engineer their update to be brick phones with third party unlocks, could you actually prove in a court of law that this was their intent? I'm not saying it couldn't be proven, but the burden of proof to show INTENT when a product/service is demonstrably for another purpose (i.e. to add features) is an extremely difficult argument to win. Not saying it can't be won... but the fact that Apple has gone out of their way to identify that third party unlocks could have this effect means they went out of their way to test said hacks, which should tell you that they've already been examining the angles of this situation... which is not saying you should be grateful, but saying you might be ice-skating uphill. But hey, anything's possible...

Let me use another example... Some of you are homeowners. Say you made a modification to your house's plumbing that was up to code, approved by the city, passed inspection but unfortunately makes it impossible for the buyer of your house to run an extra sink where they want to without making additional modifications to the plumbing. Well, in addition to all the permits and so on, there are disclosure statements that acknowledge whether the items are in general working order AS they have been designed... not as they might be modified. Are you, the seller, at risk of being sued by every buyer now and in the future for what they might like to do with the house? Absolutely not... and you should be very thankful for that. Otherwise, you'd end up making a career out of filing bankruptcy on a regular basis.

 

[sananda]

There's also SOFTWARE on the iPhone.YOU do NOT own it.APPLE does.

[edit]

From the back of the box :

"Use is subject to Apple and third party software licenses"

[/edit]

you would have to actually be made aware of any express terms prior to the purchase for them to be enforceable. you cannot agree to that to something that you are made aware after you enter into the agreement to buy.

From the box:

"Requirements: Minimum new two-year wireless service plan with AT&T required to activate all iPhone features, including iPod features."

but you don't have to activate those features. nothing written there prevents anyone from buying the phone and it remaining unactivated. it was suggested earlier that you must enter into an agreement with at&t.

What would be the purpose of purchasing a product with no functionality? The terms of sale are that the product works exclusively with AT&T. If you can get it to do other things without breaking laws, that's great. But you've got no legal recourse when it stops doing those unapproved and unspecified things. There's certainly no fitness claim to be raised.

agreed.

 

[rnizlek]

What makes me so upset with this issue is that AT&T simply chooses not to serve the entire state of Vermont! I have no problem using AT&T, but they just won't let me! My only desire to unlock the iPhone stems simply from the fact that I want one, but AT&T won't let me have one, which is why I was so disappointed in Apple's choice of AT&T as a launch partner.

I'm going to hold out with my Verizon Blackberry for the two years it takes me to finish school up here, and then I'll make the switch. I don't have to have to deal with the risk of having to reunlock my phone after every update.

 

[Kchino]

They can easily explain it away as fixing security flaws for their user base.

Relocking or bricking, the PR department will be busy in the next few weeks. Of course Apple has every right to patch the baseband exploit and relock the phone. I'm sure AT&T wouldn't have it any other way. It will however be in the headlines that Apple "locks out the hackers" or something of the sort. It will discourage some, especially those who are not already part of Apple's user base from purchasing Apple, and the Euro launch is only weeks away. Who wants to be micro managed after they have purchased a product?

Yes, I know that the majority of users have no interest in unlocking their phones. But, if you thought there was a lot of whining from the price drop, imagine what it will be like with the iBrick.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

You dont know what are you talking about /no offense/ but I live regular basis in 2-3 countries and I like gadgets. On the top of that I will NOT pay AT&T roaming charges. So in US I use AT&T but when I fly to Europe I just swap SIM. It works for me. And I like it that way...

You are not aware that you just proved my point?

Why should I feel sympathize with, or support your "need" for an unlocked iPhone when you are just some rich person that lives in three countries and has lots of gadgets (presumably just because you can), yet are too cheap to pay roaming charges and too in love with your iPhone to consider using a different one?

The whole "need" for an unlocked iPhone is way overblown and not really a need at all.

 

[sananda]

The keyword is USING. If you want to buy an iPhone as a paperweight for your desk be my guest. If you intend for it to be operational for its intended purpose and to activate all its function the requirements for you are clearly spelled out on the back of the box. But of course you want to play semantics and skirt the issue that is glaringly obvious.

it's not semantics, it's the law of contract.

you have, incorrectly in my opinion, suggested that you are in breach of contract not to sign up to at&t service.

 

[technicolor]

it's not semantics, it's the law of contract.

you have, incorrectly in my opinion, suggested that you are in breach of contract not to sign up to at&t service.

Good thing thats not worth anything, that is not what I suggested. Keep pretending like you dont understand.

 

[sananda]

Good thing thats not worth anything, that is not what I suggested. Keep pretending like you dont understand.

you very clearly did suggest that: "if you have an iPhone and are not using At&T's service you are in violation of the TOS".

 

[Peace]

you would have to actually be made aware of any express terms prior to the purchase for them to be enforceable. you cannot agree to that to something that you are made aware after you enter into the agreement to buy.

People purchasing software.hardware or kitchen sinks know full well that by purchasing the product implies they've actually read the TOS/Usage..
That's why almost any consumable product have disclaimers on the box.

 

[sananda]

People purchasing software.hardware or kitchen sinks know full well that by purchasing the product implies they've actually read the TOS/Usage..
That's why almost any consumable product have disclaimers on the box.

you'll have to guide me because i haven't bought an iphone; how are you to read these terms prior to buying?

 

[matticus008]

you would have to actually be made aware of any express terms prior to the purchase for them to be enforceable.

No. Notice is sufficient. All contracts are reviewed in objective terms--whether you actually read them is immaterial and unprovable. If you agree to be bound by the terms, which under the UCC you accomplish by going through with the transaction, you're basically stuck with them. There are some important exceptions, as always.

you cannot agree to that to something that you are made aware after you enter into the agreement to buy.

Sure you can, if the reason for your ignorance is voluntary. Otherwise there would be no commerce on this planet. You have every right to request and review terms beforehand. No seller is required to force you to read anything if you don't care enough to ask, though. The terms are neither secret nor surprising--this is why, trivia folks, no court has ever ruled a EULA an invalid tool--the legal issues with EULAs relate to the little gems companies try to hide in them among the pages and pages of text. The EULA itself is rarely the issue.

but you don't have to activate those features. nothing written there prevents anyone from buying the phone and it remaining unactivated.

Nothing except reason. Seriously, the iPhone does literally nothing out of the box but place emergency calls

you'll have to guide me because i haven't bought an iphone; how are you to read these terms prior to buying?

They hand you the box and you look at it.

 

[Nicky G]

What makes me so upset with this issue is that AT&T simply chooses not to serve the entire state of Vermont! I have no problem using AT&T, but they just won't let me! My only desire to unlock the iPhone stems simply from the fact that I want one, but AT&T won't let me have one, which is why I was so disappointed in Apple's choice of AT&T as a launch partner.

I've used AT&T in Vermont. Some areas don't have great coverage, but that's because of hills/mountains.

 

[motorazr]

iFuntastic killed 2 iPhones for me...

My first iPhone worked great until I used iFuntastic on it...then it stopped letting you hear through the speakers and it disabled the mic when not on speaker phone. Same story for my second one. While I haven't tried it on my third, I have made a connection that iFuntastic must not work for me (although all manual hacks do).

Perhaps this is the kind of thing they are talking about? After a restore my iPhone wasn't fixed and that's why I got a new one. Oh, and yes, I do realize that iFuntastic has worked fine for many...but not for a handful of people.

 

[Peace]

you'll have to guide me because i haven't bought an iphone; how are you to read these terms prior to buying?

By reading the back of the box.

Do you ever read the nutritional facts on a box of cereal ? If so.Why ? What happens if the local market decides to replace that good fiber with chicken feed.

 

[pugnut]

Not everyone unlocks to use t-Mobile- some people travel

So what happens if you are using At&T and unlocked to travel ?

 

[Sobe]

Relocking or bricking, the PR department will be busy in the next few weeks. Of course Apple has every right to patch the baseband exploit and relock the phone. I'm sure AT&T wouldn't have it any other way. It will however be in the headlines that Apple "locks out the hackers" or something of the sort. It will discourage some, especially those who are not already part of Apple's user base from purchasing Apple, and the Euro launch is only weeks away. Who wants to be micro managed after they have purchased a product?

Yes, I know that the majority of users have no interest in unlocking their phones. But, if you thought there was a lot of whining from the price drop, imagine what it will be like with the iBrick.

I doubt that permanent damage will be caused, it's just a way for Apple to say that they won't fix any problems caused by hacks.

And if someone wants to whine after deliberately voiding their warranty, I don't see that generating much sympathy.

 

[gmanrique]

talk about comparing apples to oranges...



Not to be mean but your post is ridiculous, indeed.

why is apple being so mean about this? what does it really matter? some extra revenue for them off of selling to at&t? thats just stupid. apple doest partner with any ISP for computers. "you can only use an apple computer with such and such ISP" come on now.

 

[Avatar74]

Nothing except reason. Seriously, the iPhone does literally nothing out of the box but place emergency calls

And therein lies the problem with any claim against warranty of merchantability or fitness of use... Since the features that iPhone has are almost entirely dependent upon accepting AT&T activation, you basically have a choice:

1. Accept the AT&T activation and AT&T TOS, you're guaranteed the proper functioning of the rest of the features.

2. Don't accept the AT&T activation... get the phone, 911 access, that's it. Because every feature other than 911 emergency calling is directly tied to activation of the phone through AT&T which implicitly signifies your acceptance of AT&T's terms of service. You forfeited any rights to those other features when you didn't activate the phone with AT&T. This is not the equivalent of Apple preventing you from unlocking the phone.

You might think that's rude on Apple's part, but it's also logical... They cannot guarantee that Visual Voicemail or YouTube or anything else is going to work EXACTLY as intended, or work at all necessarily, on any provider with whom they do not have a working relationship. How could they? You still received a product... with the only feature that cellular providers are legally required to guarantee.

While they can't legally prevent you from unlocking the phone, they aren't legally required to help you figure out how, nor are they legally required to prevent their phones from crapping out because you decided to use software made by someone else to unlock the phone.

Is it bad PR? Probably. Is it criminal? No.

If you want to make a stink about it, go ahead and organize a boycott. That's really your only potential recourse for failing to read the fine print. And it is the greatest power you as a consumer wield against them. Litigation goes away for the right price, but organized boycotts force changes in business practices.

 

[sananda]

No. Notice is sufficient. All contracts are reviewed in objective terms--whether you actually read them is immaterial and unprovable. If you agree to be bound by the terms, which under the UCC you accomplish by going through with the transaction, you're basically stuck with them. There are some important exceptions, as always.

Sure you can. Otherwise there would be no commerce on this planet. You have every right to request and review terms beforehand. No seller is required to force you to read anything if you don't care enough to ask, though. The terms are neither secret nor surprising--this is why, trivia folks, no court has ever ruled a EULA an invalid tool--the legal issues with EULAs relate to the little gems companies try to hide in them among the pages and pages of text. The EULA itself is rarely the issue.

Nothing except reason. Seriously, the iPhone does literally nothing out of the box but place emergency calls

They hand you the box and you look at it.

1. it is a fundamental principle of contracts that both the parties intend to be bound by the terms. if one party is unaware of certain terms he cannot possibly have the required intention except if he blithely ignores terms which are presented to him.

2. the agreement to buy the phone and the agreement to take airtime are separate. in buying the phone you have not agreed (notwithstanding that you are aware that certain features will not work without the airtime agreement) to take an airtime agreement. it is not possible to inform someone after they have entered into the one contract that they must enter into the other. and this is not, contrary to what some here believe, what is happening in this example.

3. but i am being told that the box merely says that to activate the phone you have to enter into the second agreement. it doesn't say on the box that you must activate the phone. of course, it may be that the phone is virtually useless without activation. but those who are taking another route are not breaching any agreement which stipulates that they must activate because there doesn't seem to be any such agreement (from what you are telling me...i haven't seen the box).

 

[zub3qin]

Anyone else think that this Apple "statement" regarding firmware updates rendering hacked iPhone's unusable is more for AT&T's ears rather than the consumer's?

If Apple really wanted to get word out to the masses to not hack the iPhone, they would have done so in a more public way.

Outside of Macrumors and other fan-sites, I haven't heard about Apple's statement. Apple's own press releases on their website has no mention of the "statement". AP and ABC have reported it on their websites only as of 3 hours ago.

It seems to me that if Apple wanted to get the message out to all iPhone customers to beware of hacking, they could have had something on their website, bulk emailed iPhone customers, and gotten a bigger buzz on tv.

Apple benefits from 3rd party apps, and some hacks, and I think this statement was purely for AT&T's benefit.

 

[hxe3333]

So, does this affect to installer.app users?

It's confusing, at least to me, ppl say "hacked", "unlocked" or "jailbroken(?) whatever. Third app like installer.app is hacking or jailbreaking the iPhone but not unlocking? What about software warranty void stuff?

 

[Eric Lewis]

well

i dont see why apple really cares...its just AT&t which would...

apple sells more iPhones....= $$$$$$$$$$

apple shouldnt care is more money and marketshare

 

[matticus008]

1. it is a fundamental principle of contracts that both the parties intend to be bound by the terms.

Once you finish Contracts I you'll see that this is not contradictory with what happens with business transactions.

if one party is unaware of certain terms he cannot possibly have the required intention except if he blithely ignores terms which are presented to him.

You don't get handed terms on a silver platter. They're there, they're attached to the offer just as surely as the price tag, and you manifest assent unequivocally by entering into the agreement. You have voiced a clear intent to be bound by the terms when you accept the offer. It is not anyone's responsibility but your own to review the terms beforehand in a standard form transaction.

it is not possible to inform someone after they have entered into the one contract that they must enter into the other. and this is not, contrary to what some here believe, what is happening in this example.

Exactly, so what is the point?

but those who are taking another route are not breaching any agreement which stipulates that they must activate because there doesn't seem to be any such agreement (from what you are telling me...i haven't seen the box).

The AT&T service agreement is completely irrelevant to those who never enter into it. The iPhone itself contains a limited warranty and a Software License Agreement. Those are all that matter here. The SLA contains particular provisions about modification, and those are breached, but there's no remedy, as the breach for unlocking is excused at law.