Are Unlocked iPhones Getting Bricked? At Least Some.

[Analog Kid]

He means that he is someone who purchased a U.S. iPhone, then unlocked it for use in another country. Therefore he has a U.S. phone, unlocked. He has no option whatsoever to use AT&T.

You know, I'm just waiting for the first US Visa application requesting residence because their country doesn't have an approved iPhone carrier.

On second though, maybe that would be an asylum application...

And you can use your $100 voucher so it's really $300 cheaper

Love to see the look on the Apple store clerks face: "I'd like to apply my $100 credit to a new iPhone because I just bricked my last one".

 

[iJon]

Hopefully the relock tool comes out soon. I was one of the trigger happy people and now have a bricked phone. Doesn't bother me since I've been f***ing up electronics since I could use a computer. Plus I have my old phone.

Until then I guess...

jon

 

[biggerbearbrian]

That is so much misguided logic.

From the very first time I (and you) saw any type of announcement, advertisement, flyer, brochure, web site discussion, or any other official description of the iPhone, Apple made it expressly clear that the iPhone MUST be activated with ATT to be used AT ALL for any purpose. What part of that did you not understand?

You purchased the iPhone with that understanding. Period!

What your now trying to do is find some rational for your choosing to ignore what you clearly knew when you purchased the phone.

There is NO rational excuse for anyone choosing to hack or unlock his/her iPhone. Your warrantee is now voided and you have little or no recourse. That is the penalty one must pay when on ignores an agreement made.

Dave

Sorry Dave,

As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

I agree (and think most people who have unlocked their phones would or should) that since unlocking the phone voids the warrantee, those who have done so have to live with the consequences of it and need to live with that. I actually don't have an iPhone, yet, and am still trying to decide whether to unlock it or switch to ATT.

 

[sharris490414]

Most Expensive iPhone ever

First off I would like to say that my iphone (4gb) was never unlocked it did however have installer.app installed and many apps from it. When I went to update it today to 1.1.1 it went into perma activate mode, went to the at&t store, obviously no help. Well anyway here is the story at about 4:00 I updated the phone and messed it up, fooled around with it till about 6:30 and relized that I had no chance of getting it back. I rushed to store about 20 mins away to get help, on the way I got a speeding ticket 95 in 55: 40mph over $1000 ticket (it was in a work zone). The At&t store could not help so i just bought another one.

Totals
Original iPhone: $550
Gas to store (both times): $20
Speeding Ticket: $1000
New 8gb Iphone: $450
Total: $2020

 

[daveporter]

Sorry Dave,

As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

I agree (and think most people who have unlocked their phones would or should) that since unlocking the phone voids the warrantee, those who have done so have to live with the consequences of it and need to live with that. I actually don't have an iPhone, yet, and am still trying to decide whether to unlock it or switch to ATT.

Actually, when you agree to terms and conditions in a contract, you can actually "give away" other rights you might have had had you not stipulated to them.

I'm not a lawyer, however, I have spent literally thousands of hours over the years in court giving expert witness testimony (I'm an engineer) and have become all to familiar with how one can easily give up his/her basic rights by signing a contract (on in the case of software agreeing to a EULA).

Dave

 

[Analog Kid]

Once a piece of hardware has been purchased, a company may not restrict what can be done with that hardware. They can place limitations on software licenses, but not hardware uses. Therefore, they may not make a software issue cause for denying a hardware warranty.

Buy a car and reflash the engine timings, then see if the maker will cover the repairs under warranty.

Unlocking is exempted from The DMCA. So, even though Apple doesn't like it, or condone it, it is still withing the realm of legality to unlock cell phones across the board.

I think it can be debated that Apple dangled the bait out there by not forcing buyers to get a plan PRIOR to buying the iPhone. While hacks, and 3rd party Apps may be a much darker shade of grey; unlocking the phone is not illegal. While it surely breaks the warantee, that really is the iPhone owner's choice, as the individual buyer does in fact own the phone.

Where did the DMCA come into this? Apple didn't send these people to jail, they pushed out an update wrapped in "don't do this if you'd done anything unusual" warnings and bricked a few phones. Nobody said it was illegal, they said Apple isn't responsible for people using their products improperly.

By not releasing an unlocked iPhone in the first lace, as probably everyone except AT&T's board of directors would have liked.

That one decision caused a huge split in Apple's customer base, which has lead to the same opinion-dominated discussions we see over and over again on MacRumors (like the one in this thread that I've just contributed to) and, in turn, lead to Apple being forced to release locked phones in other countries (for fear that unlocked phones would make their way back into the States) and - as a final insult to loyal Apple customers who've salivated over this device and were ready to spend their hard earned money on it - has likely lead to it not being released *AT ALL* in countries that have the good sense to not allow companies to wield the kind of anticompetitive muscle that Apple is now flexing.

That's how.

As with all products, if you don't like it don't buy it. If you use something in ways the manufacturer didn't intend, understand you're taking a risk. Don't disregard everything you're told and then whine that it's Apples fault. They didn't release SDKs, the unlock was clearly a hack, they did all that could be reasonably expected to prevent this from happening.

As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

I agree (and think most people who have unlocked their phones would or should) that since unlocking the phone voids the warrantee, those who have done so have to live with the consequences of it and need to live with that. I actually don't have an iPhone, yet, and am still trying to decide whether to unlock it or switch to ATT.

Again you're throwing the law into this... I haven't seen anyone say it's illegal to unlock the iPhone. I've seen people say it's stupid, but not illegal. Why stupid? Because all expectations are that it will break the device.

Everytime a firmware update comes out, there's dozens of nervous posts asking "does the phone still work if you've done such-and-such to it?". People know what they're doing. Now the other shoe has dropped.

Maybe next week a new unlock hack will surface, and next month more phones will brick, and the week after and the month after until a way of unlocking that doesn't conflict with the updates is found.

 

[milo]

those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality.

Sure. But on the other hand it's not illegal for apple to retaliate by "accidentally" bricking it either. They sell a product that's intended to be used with a contract, do you honestly think they'd just sit and let that happen, not respond to it?

I don't see why anyone would be surprised by this, I'm surprised it took apple this long to start bricking phones. If you don't like the terms, just don't buy the phone.

 

[igglepuff]

ok, im pretty sure im going to get flamed for this post espcially because i jsut registered after reading teh thread.. Anyway, i'm not an apple fan boy. i love my mbp and mp, i in no way worship the ground they walk on, esp with the iphone junk they pull(wanting 10% blahblah).

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth.

Apple has not purposely bricked anyone's phone, i wish they did so i could b*tch and whine about them. Yes there's (well not bricked, but limbo) reports, which are true, it happened to my gfs. However, it seems that if you have used iphonesimfree, your phone is not an iLimbo. The girlfriend's was unlocked with anysim, and is an iLimbo now - it wont even use her activated att sim. mine, however, was unlocked with ipsm and took my activated att sim (that i got with my iphone) and seems to be working. Obviously, i cant use my other sim card being there's no other way to jailbreak/activate the phone other then with itunes and all the legit att stuff right now.. though my phone has not been put into 'lockdown' mode while her seems to have been, not accepting her legit sim).

I guess there was just a right way, and wrong way to force it to unlock, and ipsm did the right way? I cant say i know anything about how they do it, all i know is they, from teh start, kept saying it was a different way the the other methods... apparently they were right?

anyway, justmy 2 cents. best of luck to everyone with an iLimbo, hope dev team releases some type of fix for everyone!

 

[rfbandit]

Well, I'm an AT&T subscriber, and I used iUnlock just to test it. The update bricked my phone, got the incorrect sim error. I put my wife's iPhone sim in it, still incorrect sim. They are both AT&T sims on valid iPhone accounts. I forced the iPhone into recovery mode, still no fix. Another change in the firmware from the update is: instead of the yellow triangle for recovery mode. It now shows the iPod/iPhone plug with an arrow to the iTunes logo. The same as the iPod Touch.

 

[igglepuff]

Sure. But on the other hand it's not illegal for apple to retaliate by "accidentally" bricking it either. They sell a product that's intended to be used with a contract, do you honestly think they'd just sit and let that happen, not respond to it?

I don't see why anyone would be surprised by this, I'm surprised it took apple this long to start bricking phones. If you don't like the terms, just don't buy the phone.

like i mentioned in my post im sure i'll be flamed for heh, i don't see them purposely doing it, at all. Especially seeing as ipsm unlocked phones aren't in activation limbo with a pre activated att card while other unlock method's are (and report the other IMEI for lockdown mode as it's beign called). They updated stuff, security im sure what what now, and it broke most unlocked phones. They didn't, and by no means should have, taken steps to try to prevent it, however, if they reallyw anted to brick unlocked phones im sure ipsm phones would be iLimbos now also..

 

[Joedy]

iPhone owners can do whatever they want with their device as they see fit; they've paid for the item and the customers have the final say in how it is utilized.


If Apple doesn't like the notion of customers using their purchased Apple products in their own prerogatives, then that is just too bad for Apple.


What should happen in this fiasco is the following:

1) Apple should unlock all new iPhones and ship them without a SIM card.

2) Apple should announce that their "best iPod ever" can be used strictly as a traditional iPod or as a WiFi-enabled personal management device right out of the box.

3) Apple should announce that certain features of the "best iPod ever" will ONLY work with an ATT wireless account. Other features would work, just not the ones designed with ATT Wireless in mind.

4) Apple wins with the hardware sales, ATT wins with the wireless sales and customers who don't want ATT or a wireless plan in order to have the "best iPod ever" will also win.



While it's tempting to take the Holy View that folks have brought this upon themselves, but the raw, unabashed truth is that Apple has created this situation and should own up to offering a solution that pleases all parties.


It continues to amaze me that Apple somehow feels that their "best iPod ever" is best marketed as a restricted device which limits customer choices.


Apple computers run Windows, they run Intel PC games, they run other OS systems, Apple iPods work with a wide variety of platforms.... Apple now prides themselves with allowing their customers the widest possible choices in the use of their Apple hardware.


In light of the current state of Apple hardware accommodation, why make such a boneheaded decision like they have done with the iPhone?


I sincerely hope that an Apple employee forwards my message to Steve Jobs himself. I'd like to see a rationale for their decision.


-joedy

 

[CWallace]

By not releasing an unlocked iPhone in the first lace, as probably everyone except AT&T's board of directors would have liked.

Apple was the one who dangled the service exclusivity agreement to the wireless carriers. AT&T was just the one willing to pony-up the most cash to Apple to get the contract.

As far as I am aware, US Law supercede's Apple's Corporate interest, in this case, even though Apple says you must play by their rules concerning locking (and is within their rights to try to limit iPhone use in this way), those wanting to unlock their phones are working within the realm of legality. This is not an excuse or a rationality, it is the law.

Apple has many attorneys on staff and on retainer who are well-versed in contract and copyright law.

So does AT&T.

As such, you can be pretty confident that both Apple and AT&T vetted these deals and conditions prior to signing them. The fact that you do not have to buy an iPhone at an AT&T store and have it activated before you leave the premises is proof of this. They know there are loopholes or exceptions in the legal code that allow folks to buy an iPhone and not subsequently activate it with AT&T, but they also know that the contract they require you to sign of your own free will prior to sale gives them certain legally-recognized rights and legally restricts some of your freedoms to do what you wish with that iPhone.

 

[shadowfax]

If you buy an iPhone...STICK WITH ATT.

Fine-print (and it wasn't even in fine print) is there not to just take up space. If you void a warranty what do you expect?

Please, the silliness is unnecessary. No one finds it interesting, helpful, or anything otherwise positive. Unlockers still have unlocked phones. Unlockers will have to wait longer than non-unlockers and those attached to their 3rd-party apps to get the 1.1.1 update, but we're all going to get it, eventually. So there's no need for those "I told you so's." I guess if that's what gets your sails up that's OK, but know that all the crap about rules is meaningless. no one is breaking rules, they are only breaking license agreements. If Apple catches them, they don't have to hold up their end of the bargain--support of any kind. NOBODY CARES. That's how it goes. A little patience, and we'll have our cake and eat it too--double-spacing and roaming preferences right in our phones, and our third party apps and all. And what will the haters have? stock iPhones and silly faces. Enjoy.

 

[daveporter]

iPhone owners can do whatever they want with their device as they see fit; they've paid for the item and the customers have the final say in how it is utilized.

-joedy

What is amazing to me is how many people do not understand that they entered into a multi-payment contract with Apple and ATT when they CHOSE to by an iPhone.

Apple obtains revenue from multiple sources to fund the development, manufacture and overhead and profit associated with the iPhone. You only paid part of the price when you bought the hardware. The other ways Apple expects your to pay (and told you so up front before you chose to buy) is by subscribing for a minimum of 2 years with ATT for cell phone and digital service since Apple is paid a piece of your payment every month from ATT. The other way it expects you to pay is by buying content from the iTunes store (songs and ring tones). They also hope that you will buy accessories from them and potentially add-on software in the future.

When you hack your phone to add your own ring-tones or software, your depriving Apple of revenue and potentially making the phone less secure. When you unlock your phone and go to another carrier, your again depriving Apple of revenue that it counted on when it sold you the phone.

If Apple did not plan to derive part of its revenue associated with the iPhone from those other sources, the iPhone hardware would have cost a lot more and would have more than likely made the iPhone non-marketable. There would not have been an iPhone...don't you understand?

Your chose to enter into this agreement with Apple and to allow it to get the rest of the revenue required to cover the true cost of the phone in what amounts to installments. Now your trying to go back on the deal and in essence not pay the rest that is due Apple.

Why wouldn't they do what ever they can to force you people who will not play by the original agreement to do so? I only wonder why they waited so long to lock down the iPhone...i would not have.

Dave

 

[biggerbearbrian]

Apple was the one who dangled the service exclusivity agreement to the wireless carriers. AT&T was just the one willing to pony-up the most cash to Apple to get the contract.





Apple has many attorneys on staff and on retainer who are well-versed in contract and copyright law.

So does AT&T.

As such, you can be pretty confident that both Apple and AT&T vetted these deals and conditions prior to signing them. The fact that you do not have to buy an iPhone at an AT&T store and have it activated before you leave the premises is proof of this. They know there are loopholes or exceptions in the legal code that allow folks to buy an iPhone and not subsequently activate it with AT&T, but they also know that the contract they require you to sign of your own free will prior to sale gives them certain legally-recognized rights and legally restricts some of your freedoms to do what you wish with that iPhone.

Agreed, and unlockers still have their legal rights, hence Steve Job's "Cat and Mouse" speech.

 

[daveporter]

OK, but know that all the crap about rules is meaningless. no one is breaking rules, they are only breaking license agreements.

License agreements are a form of contract and a contract actually spells out the "rules" of how two or more parties will act in commerce."

So, yes your breaking the rules.

Dave

 

[daveporter]

Agreed, and unlockers still have their legal rights, hence Steve Job's "Cat and Mouse" speech.

Its always interesting to see how many people imagine and assume that they have legal rights to justify any action they take. Rarely, is there actually a truly legal right to support their position. Just because your assume it does not make it so.

Most likely, if this "Cat and Mouse" game continues much longer, you will see the attorneys of Apple and ATT squash any of the mice it can find. They won't put up with this for long. They are now in the "we will make it much harder for them and see what happens" stage. Next will come a few high visibility massive lawsuits which will scare off just about anyone that facilitates unlocking, making our own ring tones or allowing you to install non-authorized applications. Most folks do not have the deep pockets to take on Apple and ATT and will cease and decist after receiving nothing more than a very stongly worded letter.

This too will pass,

Dave

 

[Macmiller]

Apple should love the Hacking!!

Why in Gods earth would Apple honestly try to stop the iPhone Hackers.. this has to be one of the most exciting things to ever happen to Apple and it's products. With the obvious neck hold on the market that AT&T has on the iPhone users, it's absolutely wonderful that the Mac community has got excited and empowered to take their beloved Apple product(s) and keep it a free spirited wonder tool! This isn't about hackers taking money from Apple.. quite the opposite... We're all running out buying phones now.. because we can use them!! As an Apple user for 20 years!!! I can't wait to join the world of iPhone users and I'll give my money to Apple to buy a phone. No problem!.. we love you!! and your products! But you start talking about punishing the Apple enthusiasts, the people that buy your products and enjoy using them... and also love creating new and exciting bits of software to make these very cool devices even cooler, you want to kill their iPhones for making them work for their personal needs... that's totally wrong.. sorry, but it's wrong! (Unless of course.. you forget to leave that other hole open.. or by mistake, you create another one somewhere.. I don't know) .. I'm not a hacker so I don't really understand the hacking part of all this.. but what I do understand and see quite readily is another Apple crazed community growing faster than anything else I've seen out of Apple other than the iPod. Speaking of which.. Did you make the Touch able to send Text messages by way of WiFi?.. So collage students around the world can sit in there homes or classes and communicate without the cost of cellular connections? C'mon. Anyway, the iPhone is becoming another cultural phenomenon.. not from the way it ships in the box but by the way it's community and users can grow with it, learn with it, explore with it and.. oh yeah, use it as a phone (on any network)... all while spreading nothing but good things about the phone and the Apple Corporation. You kill those people.. and you'll do serious damage to it's own viral marketing. Just sit back and watch your sales go UP and the creativity flow! Steve? I know you have to understand this! It's beautiful!! You have created exactly what you wanted.. a device that users can't get enough of. Why don't you just sell it ready for hacking! Here kids.. ROCK ON! And we've made it even easier to create what you want!

It's an Apple.. Enjoy!

 

[shadowfax]

License agreements are a form of contract and a contract actually spells out the "rules" of how two or more parties will act in commerce."

So, yes your breaking the rules.

Dave

Smart. Except for the part where you're wrong. You can breach a contract, and there are consequences for that. To whit: We hack our phones, we don't get support, and we risk getting our phones bricked. A contract is not a law, it's an agreement, and the consequences of failing to adhere to it are commensurate with the actions taken to break the contract. We're not talking about laws where you might get fined or put in jail. This is exclusively about whether or not you can receive support from Apple.

Moreover, you are not bound to a contract with AT&T until you sign that contract, and that signature is not implicit until you activate the phone. If you choose to activate the phone via some other method, then you avoid entering into that particular contract--With the effect of voiding your warranty.

The fact that you call people willing to abide by the consequences of their actions "dishonest" shows the real travesty of your "honorable" logic. The fact that you're so vehement about modders and so supportive of monopolists is inherently hypocritical. Why don't you leave them alone?

 

[sananda]

What is amazing to me is how many people do not understand that they entered into a multi-payment contract with Apple and ATT when they CHOSE to by an iPhone.

License agreements are a form of contract and a contract actually spells out the "rules" of how two or more parties will act in commerce."

So, yes your breaking the rules.

Dave

i'm not saying that you are wrong, but how did people enter into a "a multi-payment contract with Apple and ATT" by choosing to buy an iphone. i haven't seen the license agreement you are referring to (i don't have an iphone) but if possible could you point us to the part which says you may not unlock the phone and you are obliged to sign up with at&t (not just to activate features but as a total obligation)?

 

[Compu-Tor]

I've also heard that legitimate GoPhone users with locked phones are getting bricked by 1.1.1 - but it's not confirmed by more than 1 source, yet.

Not here. 1.1.1 and all is working well, exception being iToner ringtones.

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

What about accountability?

They warned you about hacking your phone, told you point blank it could brick your phone if you try to update it, yet you still chose to do so ignoring their warnings and then cry when your iphone gets bricked when you tried to update your hacked iphone.

You chose to do all the above. How is apple responsible? And since when is hacking/modding hardware or software ever covered by any warranty by any company? i can't think of any.

btw, you is not literally YOU, i have no idea if you personally hacked your iphone. just trying to make a point.

exactly, well said.

you were warned, you knew what you were doing and you knew the consequences. you have nobody to blame for your brick other than yourself. Does it suck your phone is broken? yes, but you knew that YOU were going to break it.

 

[megfilmworks]

A lot of hackers are posting that they have legal rights. The only legal right they have is not to be arrested. That is the sole right they retain.
Apple owns the software and if the software is corrupted by the end user then they still have the hardware they bought. i.e. a brick.

 

[synth3tik]

Let's take at peek at your own quote:


Emphasis mine.

Apple does not state anywhere that you outright are not allowed to unlock the iPhone for use on an international carrier. Nor does it mention anywhere that activation with AT&T is required for the warranty to remain valid. Why? Because U.S. law prevents them from making such a stipulation. Once a piece of hardware has been purchased, a company may not restrict what can be done with that hardware. They can place limitations on software licenses, but not hardware uses. Therefore, they may not make a software issue cause for denying a hardware warranty.

The trick arises in wether or not unlocking is a "hardware" or a "software" modification. I don't think the status of firmware as hardware or software has ever been tested in court.

You knew what they meant though, quit trying to play around with words.

 

[PDE]

You knew what they meant though, quit trying to play around with words.

Come on, that's all Apple does: play with and distort words for their own benefit and protection.