The hardware won't support it, while giving the performance Apple wants. They do it so people will upgrade, yes. But they also do it so people don't complain about the performance not being up to par with Apple standards.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple: Jailbreaking May Still Void iPhone Warranty
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The hardware won't support it, while giving the performance Apple wants. They do it so people will upgrade, yes. But they also do it so people don't complain about the performance not being up to par with Apple standards.
It's Your walled garden, but have a tissue. Here take a box of tissue paper.
The Telcos are still free to wall you off their network if you have a jail broken iPhone and this ruling doesn't give you any protection over that situation, especially if you install software that violates your TOS with AT&T or any other Telco.
Like it or not, Apple reserves this right. Apple is a principled company and it shows in all that they do. This attracts both cheers and jeers.
This MacRumors report seems to border on legal advice:
"Apple remains free ... to discourage users [from jailbreaking] by ... voiding product warrantees due to violations of the terms and conditions all users must agree to... ."
This may just mean that Apple is free to TRY to discourage people, but to me, this implies that the writer feels Apple is within its legal rights to dishonour warranties based on jailbreaking.
If the contract that consumers make with Apple by agreeing to the terms and conditions is considered by the law to supersede any other rights the consumer has, this may be true.
However, that contract may NOT supersede consumers' rights, depending on where they are. I would urge people to read any relevant consumer protection legislation in their jurisdiction (some such laws, at least, use reasonably plain language and aren't that hard to get around). In BC, for example, the Sale of Goods Act (available at http://canlii.org/) imposes an "implied condition that goods will be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of the sale or lease" (read the Act for the full wording; it's section 18(c)). Also, in a retail sale, that implied condition cannot be gotten around by any warranty or condition imposed by the seller (s. 20(2); again, read the section, as there are some exceptions).
I don't know of any particular examples of courts considering what is "reasonable" etc. but we cannot conclude for certain that a retailer can arbitrarily deny repair of a phone just because of a breach of the manufacturer's terms and conditions--consumer laws may forbid this in some circumstances.
One wrinkle though is the legislation cited above gives consumers rights against the seller, not the manufacturer. If you buy directly from Apple, then presumably your beef is with Apple. If you buy from someone else (like your phone company) then your rights may be enforceable directly against them.
This isn't legal advice, of course, and if you have a question about your rights you should do your own research and consult a lawyer that practices in your jurisdiction.
What you should NOT do is assume that you have no right to question any retailer's denial of warranty, especially, for example, if your complaint is about a defect unrelated to any jailbreaking of the phone.
"Apple remains free ... to discourage users [from jailbreaking] by ... voiding product warrantees due to violations of the terms and conditions all users must agree to... ."
This may just mean that Apple is free to TRY to discourage people, but to me, this implies that the writer feels Apple is within its legal rights to dishonour warranties based on jailbreaking.
If the contract that consumers make with Apple by agreeing to the terms and conditions is considered by the law to supersede any other rights the consumer has, this may be true.
However, that contract may NOT supersede consumers' rights, depending on where they are. I would urge people to read any relevant consumer protection legislation in their jurisdiction (some such laws, at least, use reasonably plain language and aren't that hard to get around). In BC, for example, the Sale of Goods Act (available at http://canlii.org/) imposes an "implied condition that goods will be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of the sale or lease" (read the Act for the full wording; it's section 18(c)). Also, in a retail sale, that implied condition cannot be gotten around by any warranty or condition imposed by the seller (s. 20(2); again, read the section, as there are some exceptions).
I don't know of any particular examples of courts considering what is "reasonable" etc. but we cannot conclude for certain that a retailer can arbitrarily deny repair of a phone just because of a breach of the manufacturer's terms and conditions--consumer laws may forbid this in some circumstances.
One wrinkle though is the legislation cited above gives consumers rights against the seller, not the manufacturer. If you buy directly from Apple, then presumably your beef is with Apple. If you buy from someone else (like your phone company) then your rights may be enforceable directly against them.
This isn't legal advice, of course, and if you have a question about your rights you should do your own research and consult a lawyer that practices in your jurisdiction.
What you should NOT do is assume that you have no right to question any retailer's denial of warranty, especially, for example, if your complaint is about a defect unrelated to any jailbreaking of the phone.
Exactly, people that see negative in this news are plain oblivious to facts.
Before : Your warranty claims were denied and you could face prosecution under the anti-circumvention measures of the DMCA.
Now: Your warranty claims are still denied. That is all.
I don't see where this is in any way negative. You'd rather they go back to before ?
At least now the jailbreakers can do their thing in peace, without constant fears of DMCA takedown notices and prosecution.No, but they can if the modification you did in breach of those terms might have caused the defect. And really, how do you know the jailbreak software isn't responsible ? Unless it's a very obvious hardware problem like dead pixels on a screen or broken plastic/glass/metal part, then there's really no way to be sure until you revert the phone back.
Seems pretty cut and dry.
- A person can freely modify a product they buy.
- Apple is not compelled to cover that propuct once it is modified.
- A person can freely modify a product they buy.
- Apple is not compelled to cover that propuct once it is modified.
They cannot find out if you've jailbroken, what I mean is if something goes wrong with your iphone, you can always restore the original firmware.. Unless of course you can no longer turn the iphone on or if its not being detected on any computer.. Then it might be an issue
But you cannot brick your iphone/ipod from jailbreaking..
But you cannot brick your iphone/ipod from jailbreaking..
Well, if the problem is software related and you have a jailbroken device, no they should not cover it. However, if something goes wrong with the hardware, it's not because of the jailbreak, and should still be serviced. and can be if you just restore your phone
I'm sorry dude, but that's just stupid. Apple sells the user the device and says "Don't jailbreak it, because when you do we can't help you." and that's the bottom line. It's not their fault that you decided to mess with the device.
What you're saying is like if you set the front of a house on fire, and when the whole thing burned down you say "But I only set the front of that house on fire, it's not my fault it burned down! The makers of the house are responsible for not making the rest of the house fireproof!"
What "made up numbers and reasons" are you on about?
In the context it was used, the two words are interchangeable.
e.g. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility…”
Insure? Really? I'd settle for ensure.
Anyone know a good ensurance salesman? C'mon people...its basic English.
Anyone know a good ensurance salesman? C'mon people...its basic English.
Actually, if your iPhone is not even turning on thats even better. Then you don't even have to restore. I had a faulty charger that completely fried my 3GS, and it was jailbroken. It was promptly replaced with a new one no questions asked.
I agree with this, but I really don't know enough about the software/hardware relationship...
agreed. a simple restore erases the evidence of jailbreaking and thus this "voidance" of warranty. not sure how many people apple's response will scare into not jailbreaking. as for me, believe it or not, i am satisfied with not jailbreaking at this time...
No matter what i will not be satisfied unless im jailbroken. That's the whole reason i kept my unlimited plan with ATT, mywi is one of the best jailbroken apps out there. i need it to tether my 3G service to my wifi iPad, it's amazing. i refuse to pay att for that, not happening.
No kidding -- I'm in PR/Communications and that would TOTALLY be a firing offense. It also points out that this statement was issued VERY quickly and may not be Apple's final statement on the topic.
BULLCRAP!!!! Anyone here load iOS4 on an iPhone 3G? That "update" has turned my iPhone into the slowest and most maddening experience ever. I think I am going to jailbreak it, because in my opinion, the user experience can't possibly suck anymore than it does now. They might as well have bricked the phone on me, because that's how miserable I am with it now.
Apple has never intended to have a closed down and locked up system. The whole environment of jail breaking is basically a statistic on the good will of the public. Apple has betted on the decency of the general population for a long time now, and the result is that most people still pay for their applications. If I were a programmer working for Apple, I know that there are a plethora of options to choose from. I think the reason why Apple has decided to leave the these vulnerabilities open, is to let the people find them. Although I do not condone the jail breaking community, I understand why people want full control of their device. Jail breaking is useful for those applications which have not met the specifications for Apple's approval process. However for those people who have fulfilled their obligation to AT&T during their two year contract, unlocking the phone is a basic right.
You're missing the point. That is just the sort of thing that is illegal. Cars are a better analogy. If you install an engine modification and your engine blows up because of it, the manufacturer can refuse to fix the engine if they can prove the modification caused it. They can't refuse to fix your broken seat because you modified your engine.
Same thing with the iPhone. If you brick your phone jailbreaking it, Apple's not responsible for fixing that. But if the volume button breaks off, or the camera dies, Apple can't deny the repair because of what you did to the software. And, to their credit, I've never heard anyone say they *have* tried to do that.
In any case, the impact of today's decision on the individual iPhone user -- Apple hasn't ever done much to try to stop jailbreaking anyway. What this *does* protect is the work of the people who develop the jailbreak software -- and for them, this is a big deal.
iOS 4 should NOT have been released for iPhone 3G (and equivalent iPod Touch). Mine crashes > once a day. Others have slowdowns (thank goodness I don’t have that). Some have both problems! And probably some are running just fine—I know two people with old 3Gs that have no complaints. But I don’t think the odds of that are good enough to release the product. Maybe I’d be wrong if I saw actual stats, and 3G owners with problems—like me--are a vocal minority. But I suspect otherwise, and so I feel iOS 4 should have been limited to newer devices (3GS+). And “newer” isn’t even the right term: the venerable 3G was still being sold at the low end quite recently!
I plan to jailbreak my 3G too. If it was my only phone, I’d HAVE to either do that or downgrade to iOS 3 (unless Apple gets a fix out FAST, and I fear a fix will be a long time coming if ever). Luckily I have an iPhone 4 (on which iOS 4 is great) so I don’t HAVE to solve my 3G’s iOS 4 problems. (It’s just an iPod Touch with camera/GPS and no cell plan now.) But I CHOOSE to jailbreak it just as a fun hobby exercise. It may suffer for it, it may not. But it won’t be worse than iOS 4, as you say! And no, I will not be pirating any apps.
Exactly. People are howling about an imaginary problem. Apple has NEVER said they will refuse to fix hardware failures due to jailbreaking. Nor have they done so in practice. In fact, their repair policies in my experience are incredibly flexible and generous.
The worst fallout from this policy is the SAME fallout there has always been: Apple will sometimes want you to restore your software to factory condition to verify that a problem is hardware. And they ask that same thing of everyone—it’s not just for jailbreakers
I waited a year to JB my 3G. The only thing bad I noticed is that the speed of things went down a little. Then iOS4 came along and I thought I would update as things ought to be better. The only thing bad I noticed was that the speed is totally ****ed up! (BTW that was totally FOOKKED up). Thanks Apple. Back to OS3 and JB.
Because i don't care about unlocking. where else am i gonna go? t-mobile? they suck more than ATT. can't go to verizon because thats cdma, therefore i dont care. as long as i have my jailbreak and free tethering im happy