Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Issues Warning on iPhone Unlocking

wPod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its about apple's reputation working with other companies. Apple has a contract with ATT saying that their iPhone will only be with them. If apple allows people to rip off the iPhone and use it with anyone, that is bad for ATT. That ruins ATT's confidence in apple, along with other perspective companies that may work with apple in the future. Apple needs to be able to keep their own products under control, if they can't who would want to work with them?
 
Avatar74 said:
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:
Click to expand...
Or 3. Unlock the phone and use it with another carrier, provided you can find a legal way to do so (any unlocking technique is legal for the end user, but only as far as the unlocking--third party development hacks, add-on software, and the like are a different ball game). At this point, you assume full responsibility for the performance of the device, waive all warranty claims as to internal operation of the device, and explicitly disclaim any implied warranty rights pertaining to phone performance and just about any safety issue short of hazardous materials or dangerous construction.

You have no guarantee of ongoing functionality after software updates and no actionable claims for the failure of the device to perform if you voluntarily update the phone software to a new firmware version incompatible with your chosen unlocking scheme. You may certainly restore, update, and re-unlock the phone should that option be available.
 
kdarling said:
Exactly.

At the same time, they have to tread carefully, and their updates have to mess up unlocked phones only "by coincidence".

Too many traps for Apple. Congress is not happy with them over the carrier exclusivity in the first place. The legality of relocking is also up in the air. I don't even know how they can claim it voids a warranty, since they have no software warranty!

In the meantime, the best they can do is what they did: warn everyone so people can restore before updating, and wait for the next unlock hack.
Click to expand...

I'm not happy with Congress or with the telcos, and think they've been way too cosy with each other for far too long. How New York State got carved up for cell coverage is a disgrace. Most of the rural areas are still dead or "partnered" in spotty fashion. Experienced cell service consumers know it's a roulette game trying to keep cell contract(s) from getting cancelled by making too many calls off the wrong "partnered" towers.

My issues with Apple really pale in that light. I do have some beefs with Apple, usually to do with what I might regard as early obsolescence, but that's because I like to drive my machines into the ground and sometimes can't do it because I also want something from the feature set of newer ones. Wah, poor me, I eventually get over it. I enjoy complaining for a few weeks each time, too!

As for exclusivity of phones to carriers, it's a typical gig for the manufacturer to cut an exclusive deal with a carrier at rollout of a new phone. The manufacturer wants the cachet of those carrier ads that say "ONLY with whoeverCarrier, the brand new BLIPPYPHONE!" And the carrier hopes the entire early-adopting chunk of its base just can't wait for that blippyphone to become way cheaper and so will upgrade at full price with a new 2-year contract. It's hardly a concept developed by Apple and ATT. The typical Congressman complaining probably just wants an iPhone and lives in a zone not served by ATT. Tough. Welcome to a taste of the world you created for us, gentlemen!
 
matticus008 said:
Once you finish Contracts I you'll see that this is not contradictory with what happens with business transactions.


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.

Exactly, so what is the point?

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.
Click to expand...

i am, i think, in the same job as you so there's no need for the "once you finish contracts 1".

i haven't suggested that the terms should be handed on a silver platter. i'm arguing against the suggestion (which has been suggested earlier in the thread) that by entering into the first agreement you must enter into the second agreement. if that it was really the case, it wouldn't any kind of standard consumer agreement and would be completely unexpected to the buyer. which is why i say that there would be no mutual intention to create legal relations on the second contract.

my sole point is that there is no requirement to take at&t service having bought an iphone as has been suggested.
 
shakastange said:
I bought an iPhone off apple.com. There was never any mention of ATT.
Click to expand...

Yes there was....you must have not seen the big blocks just under the "Add to Cart" option....
 

Attachments

  • see?.jpg
    see?.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 79
shakastange said:
I guarantee you that was not there
Click to expand...

Now, I am not calling you a liar at all...

But, it HAD to be there somewhere, you had to have just missed it...There is very small print on the online store too saying you need AT&T. I mean, since it was introduced at MacWorld, it was "Requires: Minimum 2 year contract." I can't believe that Apple JUST added that.

On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE and so I will respect your claim :)

EDIT:
Wow, there is NO mention of AT&T for the refurbished online store. I went as far as typing my credit card info, all without ONE word of AT&T. Now, that is CRAZY. Can a refurbished buyer look at their box and see if it says "Minimum two year contract with AT&T" on it? If not, then refurbished iPhone buyers may have a loophole if they play "dumb." Dumb, because we all know that everyone knew it was locked to AT&T, it was EVERYWHERE...in commercials, previews, reviews, etc. But if Apple put nothing with the refurbished, that is odd!!!
 
Sean7512 said:
Now, I am not calling you a liar at all...

But, it HAD to be there somewhere, you had to have just missed it...There is very small print on the online store too saying you need AT&T. I mean, since it was introduced at MacWorld, it was "Requires: Minimum 2 year contract." I can't believe that Apple JUST added that.

On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE and so I will respect your claim :)
Click to expand...

Yes you're calling me a liar, quite politely.

I just did it again with no mention of ATT. Go to apple.com. Click store. On the left side of the page under Special Deals click Clarance. On the nexr pge check the iPhone box. Then continue. And behold
 
this is a good thing. the more money they make the better the stock will do. Att&t has great coverage anyway and rollover minutes. Plus the rate plans for the iphone are really good. I don't see why so many people are opposed to switching. Isn't easier than having to hack stuff and unlock stuff, endangering your expensive purchase?
 
Can't you also do a Pay-As-You-Go option? That would mean that everyone on Pay-As-You-Go is breaking Apple's agreement. ;)
 
hmmm FUD??

arn said:
A restore doesn't reverse the unlock. The unlock changes the modem firmware I believe... but regardless, it is restore resistant.

arn
Click to expand...

If you can change the firmware once to "unlock" the SIM, then surely you can change the firmware again, but this time back to the original (that you surely backed up I would hope) right ?

Even if its not easy, you can always *COMPLETELY* wipe so called "read-only" memory and put the backup data back in right? Only thing I know of that is different is "write-once' memory, but obviously if you could change it after the factory uploaded it the first time, its not "write once" anyways...
Any firmware ROM experts out there care to comment?
 
Wondering if it would be best to buy the iPhone with the first firmware version before the next wave of iPhones with the new firmware. Kinda like the PSP and all the Devhook releases.
 
I wanted to add a few comments to people that are calling for a class action suit or that Apple is bricking iphone on purpose, et cetera, et cetera... I don't work for Apple, but as an electrical engineer with many years (12+) in hardware design at a company much larger than Apple I find these statements ridiculous. I'm not sure if these posts are from teenagers or whatever. But, I wanted to point out a few things.
1. Apple doesn't need to validate their firmware on phones that have been modified by hackers. It COST money to have many testers evaluate the update process and your $200 still doesn't cover the cost. And from experience, these updates get tested like crazy and updates are not taken lightly, the coders don't have time to check every register value time and time again because someone has too much time on their hands. They are far more concerned with testing that this firmware works 99.5% of the time on 99.9% of the phones in service - remember one million of anything is a hell of a mountain of plastic! :D
2. I doubt Apple is intentionally bricking phones, but they have a right to disable the firmware hack because of a possible lawsuit by AT&T. They entered into an agreement with AT&T and I'm sure AT&T would like this hole closed or an effort showed to close it.

I'm sure this is a case of covering their....... Apple doesn't want to fix broken phones because some bright people made it easy for owners to think they are owed something. If the update works - super, if it bricks your phone - sorry, but I bet it is unintentional.
 
firmware = software in ROM

Daremo said:
It's because you're NOT just changing the software. Unlocking changes the firmware on the modem. The potential danger has always been known, people shouldn't act so surprised.
Click to expand...

firmware = software in ROM
 
Sean7512 said:
Now, I am not calling you a liar at all...

EDIT:
Wow, there is NO mention of AT&T for the refurbished online store. I went as far as typing my credit card info, all without ONE word of AT&T. Now, that is CRAZY. Can a refurbished buyer look at their box and see if it says "Minimum two year contract with AT&T" on it? If not, then refurbished iPhone buyers may have a loophole if they play "dumb." Dumb, because we all know that everyone knew it was locked to AT&T, it was EVERYWHERE...in commercials, previews, reviews, etc. But if Apple put nothing with the refurbished, that is odd!!!
Click to expand...

shakastange said:
Yes you're calling me a liar, quite politely.

I just did it again with no mention of ATT. Go to apple.com. Click store. On the left side of the page under Special Deals click Clarance. On the nexr pge check the iPhone box. Then continue. And behold
Click to expand...


Did either of you happen to click on the "Warrenty" ? Duh.
 

Attachments

  • warrenty.png
    warrenty.png
    165.9 KB · Views: 154
Rom = Rom, Firmware = Firmware, No ?

fr0 said:
From what I understand the baseband is being flashed. Couldn't you theoretically use bbupdater to reflash the baseband with the unpatched firmware and be as good as new?
Click to expand...

I would assume so. I have been looking into this, and except for some exotic IC that I doubt they would use, I haven't found any way to explain the concept that flashing the original firmware back into ROM wouldn't undo every change someone has made, whether uploading "unlocking" firmware or not. I hope someone alot smarter than me can comment on this!
 
ChrisA said:
The Phone must contain a boot loader some place. Is it in flash memory or an EEPROM? I'd assume that latter and I'd asume the SIM stuff is there too. Perhaps the warning means the new bootloader will start checksumming the EEPROM and refuse to work if the checksum fails.
Click to expand...

so couldn't you just restore the EEPROM assuming it was a modified EEPROM dump that was flashed in the first place to unlock the phone??
 
shakastange said:
Yes you're calling me a liar, quite politely.

I just did it again with no mention of ATT. Go to apple.com. Click store. On the left side of the page under Special Deals click Clarance. On the nexr pge check the iPhone box. Then continue. And behold
Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole thread, so I dunno everything that has been said. But arguing that it wasn't stated ATT was required when you bought the phone is just a dumb argument. When you have to HACK your phone to get it to use another carrier that clearly implies ATT is required.

I think Apple is right to do this. 1. They have a contract with ATT and 2. Apple is sharing revenue on plan fees with them, it is in their best interest to keep people from using other carriers.
 
jaw04005 said:
The "firmware" Apple provides via iTunes is more like a software update. It may or may not contain actual firmware changes to iPhone components. The unlocking software currently available makes changes to the iPhone's internal modem firmware. Therefore, making the unlock restore proof. These are entirely different issues.

It would be like if you updated (flashed) the firmware of your graphics card. Reinstalling Mac OS would not restore your graphic card's firmware to its original state.[/QUOTE
true... but reflashing the EEPROM or flash memory that holds the firmware with the original firmware would do the trick assuming its that that is modified with the unlock hack.
Click to expand...
 
No one can use the excuse that they did not know about the fact that you have to use AT&T. When you unlock it you knowingly unlock it to use with a carrier other then AT&T. Quite frankly all unlockers knew what they were getting into.


Using laws and lack of information on the refurb site does not excuse a lack of common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back