Are Unlocked iPhones Getting Bricked? At Least Some.

[crisc]

All this talk about legality.

This question is you purchased the phone, now do you own Apple's code or are you using Apple code with their permission?

My say is that you do not own the OSX code or the firmware code.

So when you hack into the code and make changes your are doing so without Apples permission.

Did Apple give you permission to alter its code.

I do not think it is open sourced.

So, yes the phone is yours, you can rip the battery out and sell it someone else, but taking the code and selling it is illegal

 

[DrV]

A lot of you disgruntled hackers act like Apple is the only phone hardware provider who "locks" their phones. This happens with any phone you buy at any store.

What? Any phone? I got my first GSM phone in 1996, and I have had pretty many of them since. None of them has been locked in any way.

AFAIK, Apple iPhone is the only major GSM phone type which cannot be bought unlocked at any price. There are other carrier-specific phones around, but they are just minor modifications of something generally available.

Yes, I would like to buy an iPhone. Despite my long history with Windows and *X operating systems and PC hardware I have really grown to like Apple. Now Apple is offering something new and nice with great reviews. I am quite confident the user experience is great. Where can I get one so that it will accept a SIM of any networks available here?

Oh, did I mention that the world is not flat? There is really no edge over which you would fall into the void, so actually you can sail over an ocean. There is more world on the other side.

I am not saying Apple is doing something illegal. I am just saying that the iPhone is really different from everything else in this sense. But does ignoring the majority of GSM phone market do any good to shareholders, either?

I took the phone to the local Apple store and the Genius bar folks looked in their system and sure enough, because the IMEI number didn't match it told the Genius that it was an unlocked phone.

If unlocking a phone changes its IMEI, there is a problem. The IMEI code is a unique code given to a phone when it is manufactured. No two phones in the world should have the same IMEI, ever.

One of the uses of the IMEI code is that it can be used to brick stolen phones. If an IMEI is reported to belong to a stolen phone, the phone should not work in any GSM network (not all operators honor the blacklists, though). As a consequence, hacking the IMEI is something less-law-abiding citizens are sometimes quite interested in.

IIRC, it is illegal in some countries (e.g. the UK) to change the IMEI or even to possess equipment to change it.

While I do not like the idea of some company bricking unlocked phones on purpose, I do not like the idea of phones with forged IMEIs, either. Bricking them is quite acceptable.

 

[techyjoe]

Sla

Sounds like a lot of people need to read the Software License Agreement they agreed to by using their iPhone. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf

By USING your iPhone you agreed to these terms. Has nothing to do with AT&T. Plain and simple fact is these terms were agreed upon by pressing the power button. If you didn't agree to these terms why didn't you return the phone for a refund. Apple has every right to terminate the license agreement if you fail to comply with the terms. You might own the hardware but your licensing the software from apple. If they disable the software because you failed to comply, it's your own fault and they are not obligated to honor a warranty that was voided when you violated the terms. Can't be any more clear. Where's the confusion and whining coming from?

 

[abiwoody]

Figures

This is why I don't use Apple or AT&T. I don't even use Microsoft's products. These companies have people like puppets on strings.

 

[ncbill]

Apple would be forced to provide full refunds (no restocking fee allowed) were they intentionally attempting to disable unlocked iPhones.

Please note Apple has gone to great pains to warn everyone that their latest software update could, though *inadvertently*, disable an unlocked iPhone permanently.

In no way do they want to give anyone an excuse to accuse them of deliberately disabling an iPhone.

Again, no contract has been agreed to by simply purchasing an iPhone.

You are free to unlock it and use it with your choice of GSM provider.

Sounds like a lot of people need to read the Software License Agreement they agreed to by using their iPhone. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf

By USING your iPhone you agreed to these terms. Has nothing to do with AT&T. Plain and simple fact is these terms were agreed upon by pressing the power button. If you didn't agree to these terms why didn't you return the phone for a refund. Apple has every right to terminate the license agreement if you fail to comply with the terms. You might own the hardware but your licensing the software from apple. If they disable the software because you failed to comply, it's your own fault and they are not obligated to honor a warranty that was voided when you violated the terms. Can't be any more clear. Where's the confusion and whining coming from?

 

[PDE]

Sounds like a lot of people need to read the Software License Agreement they agreed to by using their iPhone. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf

By USING your iPhone you agreed to these terms. Has nothing to do with AT&T. Plain and simple fact is these terms were agreed upon by pressing the power button. If you didn't agree to these terms why didn't you return the phone for a refund. Apple has every right to terminate the license agreement if you fail to comply with the terms. You might own the hardware but your licensing the software from apple. If they disable the software because you failed to comply, it's your own fault and they are not obligated to honor a warranty that was voided when you violated the terms. Can't be any more clear. Where's the confusion and whining coming from?

It's not like that software license is in the box in paper form. You have to start your iphone, activated it with ATT and then read through countless pages buried in the general tab in settings. So, if you open it up like most people would do, and start using it normally, it would be a long time before you accidentally stumbled on the software license agreement. By that time, people can't return it without a restocking fee and I doubt Apple would wave the restocking fee if a customer said s/he can't agree to the software license. Whatever is all I can say. People defending the dubious, obfuscating practices of a big corporation...blah!

 

[DeathChill]

I really don't get why Apple "accidentally" somewhat bricked iPhones as they could have EASILY avoided all of this. The way they applied the update was specificly to harm unlocked phones, which makes me laugh.

 

[mklos]

what is your source for this information? or are you assuming?

They have to be assuming because it was said that it only costs Apple like $200 or so to make the phone. So its not like Apple is now selling the iPhone at a loss now because they've significantly reduced the price.

 

[techyjoe]

How do figure that using an unlocked phone on another network is complying with the Software License Agreement? Your still using Apples Boot Rom and other embedded software including OSX. Still violating the terms of the agreement. Not to mention the reverse engineering required to have unlocked the phone. Read the Software License Agreement in detail.

Apple would be forced to provide full refunds (no restocking fee allowed) were they intentionally attempting to disable unlocked iPhones.

Please note Apple has gone to great pains to warn everyone that their latest software update could, though *inadvertently*, disable an unlocked iPhone permanently.

In no way do they want to give anyone an excuse to accuse them of deliberately disabling an iPhone.

Again, no contract has been agreed to by simply purchasing an iPhone.

You are free to unlock it and use it with your choice of GSM provider.

 

[techyjoe]

The Software License Agreement itself wasn't in the box, but on page 15 of the Important Product Information Guide (which comes in the iPhone box) states "Use of the iPhone is subject to the iPhone Software License Agreement found at: www.apple.com/legal/sla". This can be read before you activate your phone.

Why are so many people so determined to find a way around it. It is what it is. If you purchased an Xbox and modified it causing a software malfunction do you think Microsoft would replace it under warranty?

It's not like that software license is in the box in paper form. You have to start your iphone, activated it with ATT and then read through countless pages buried in the general tab in settings. So, if you open it up like most people would do, and start using it normally, it would be a long time before you accidentally stumbled on the software license agreement. By that time, people can't return it without a restocking fee and I doubt Apple would wave the restocking fee if a customer said s/he can't agree to the software license. Whatever is all I can say. People defending the dubious, obfuscating practices of a big corporation...blah!

 

[Analog Kid]

I really don't get why Apple "accidentally" somewhat bricked iPhones as they could have EASILY avoided all of this. The way they applied the update was specificly to harm unlocked phones, which makes me laugh.

Do enlighten us on the easy way...

 

[LastZion]

Today, I stupidly upgraded my unlocked phone (well it was unlocked at one time, but after a restore, the unlock no longer worked) and I got the wrong sim error.

I took the phone to the local Apple store and the Genius bar folks looked in their system and sure enough, because the IMEI number didn't match it told the Genius that it was an unlocked phone. The bottom line he said was that it was not something they would fix.

He did say that hopefully someone will figure out how to unbrick it (he prefaced that statement with "Apple doesn't want me to say this, but...").

So I bought a new phone, moved the old sim over, activated it via iTunes and then upgraded to 1.1.1, restored the settings from my old phone, synced my music, addresses, etc and $429 later, I'm back in action.

A very expensive lesson. But I will hold onto the old phone and hope someone figures out a solution. Then I'll probably sell it on ebay.

Best of luck everyone --

Eric/San Diego

Can we get this thread back on track to posts like this one, enough of the right/wrong, legal/illegal... lets hear from the people that have tried to update and have failed or succeeded.

 

[island]

The way I see it is if you mess with a phone, do so at your own risk. If you can trick them into fixing it under warranty, more power to you. If not, too bad.

 

[Thunderbird1]

The King is naked...everyone sees....

The King is naked...everyone sees....

Aren't we are supposed to be living in a free society? Free
societies use "laissez faire economics" to do business. In other
words, free enterprise. Corporate Apple sells a product, consumer
buys product and decides how they want to use it. They may choose to
use it as a doorstop or a phone. It is ridiculous to think I am
barred from using my phone however I want, as long as it does not
encroach on another.
If it happens to not fit in the "box" that Apple
thinks it should, but the consumer does, shouldn't they change their attitude (agreements)? What ever happened to the philosophy the customer is always right?
The consumer will decide the best course of
action for the product, but the company better listen to the consumer
or there will be a huge backlash. It happens with every business. ATT
is an outstanding example of a company that tries to do the opposite
of the free enterprise market philosophy. They simply don't care
about the consumer, but do care about total control over the consumer
the way "they think is best." ATT would like to change the name to
iControl, not iphone. If you have any doubt, read their agreement and
see how much in control they are. How much information they want from
you, including your SS#(talk about invasion of privacy! Aren't
these some of the reasons why they were busted up years ago? Most saw
them as a threat to free enterprise.
Cannot believe Apple teamed up
with such a rough company. You can bet your last dollar they are
screaming at Apple to do something about the obvious popularity of
the unlock program. It is very legal to do and they know it. If ATTs
service were good and fair, they would not need to say a word. We
would all use it. That is the genius of free enterprise, the consumer
decides which carrier to use, not the other way around. You can bet
all carriers would compete in a most fair manner to win your
patronage. You are king and decide the future of Apple and ATT not
them deciding our future.
If only Nokia, Samsung, Sony and others
would give them a run for their money. Apple and ATT would not behave
this way. Competition is always best for us the consumer. Without the
consumer Apple & ATT would not exist. There are many examples of
trying to lock the consumer out. Which history proves, only results
in bad PR for everyone involved. It takes years to get rid of a bad
taste in everyone's mouth. That is precisely the reason the ATT name
was retired for such a long while, before they started the "New ATT"
with Apple. Those who fail to recognize history are destined to
repeat the same mistakes. Will they never learn?

 

[techyjoe]

So apple puts a product on the market but requires you to use a particular carrier. What's the problem? Did steve jobs force you to buy an iPhone? Or maybe you live where AT&T doesn't provide service. Again, did steve jobs force you to buy an iPhone knowing that you can't subscribe to AT&T's service?

 

[hollerz]

Can we get this thread back on track to posts like this one, enough of the right/wrong, legal/illegal... lets hear from the people that have tried to update and have failed or succeeded.

Agreed. Who cares if you think it's right or wrong, fact is we have unlocked it and want to know what effect this firmware has on our phone. No-one wants to see you get on your high horse and tell us we shouldn't of done it.

 

[AVR2]

They have to be assuming because it was said that it only costs Apple like $200 or so to make the phone

I am *not* assuming. IT IS A FACT - in exchange for the exclusive carrier contract, AT&T are part-subsidising the cost of the iPhone to make it more affordable for end users. Want an official unlocked iPhone? Fine - are you prepared to pay double the retail cost?

This kind of business model has been in use throughout most of the developed world for well over a decade now. Indeed, it is what kickstarted the mass-market cellphone revolution; the carriers realised that if they subsidised phone prices, they would more than make their money back through the massively increased number of users they would attract.

That's why phones are so much cheaper - sometimes even given away free (literally) - if you agree to sign up to a service contract at the point of sale. The service provider is subsidising the cost of your purchase, or even buying the phone for you outright, because you are worth far more to them as an ongoing customer than it costs them to buy you the phone.

Is this a concept that's new to the USA?

Steve Jobs addressed this at the London iPhone launch; a journalist asked why the iPhone was locked to one provider, and Jobs replied, among other things, that it was the best way to bring it to market at the most affordable price.

As for the idea that the iPhone supposedly only contains about $200 of parts... well, maybe it does. But what does that have to do with it? When you buy an iPhone, you're not just paying for the parts, you're paying for the years of R&D, you're paying for the salaries of the people on the production line, you're paying for the salaries of the people who design and print the boxes and manuals, you're paying for the cost of the initial tooling-up of the production lines... exactly the same as with *any* new consumer electronics product.

And as with any new consumer electronics product, it's the early adopters who bear the brunt of the cost. It's because they pay more that later adopters can pay less. And when the AT&T contract runs out, I would imagine that the iPhone will have made enough money back for Apple to start selling it unlocked.

 

[neveleven]

iphone

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[/QUOTE

The thing costs £200, who cares. IF anything happens to them we could always go buy another!

 

[OllyW]

I really don't get why Apple "accidentally" somewhat bricked iPhones as they could have EASILY avoided all of this. The way they applied the update was specificly to harm unlocked phones, which makes me laugh.

Do enlighten us on the easy way...

They could have added a pre-check to the updater which would refuse to install the firmware update if the phone was hacked.

 

[PDE]

They could have added a pre-check to the updater which would refuse to install the firmware update if the phone was hacked.

I have to agree. I mean, since they know exactly how the phones were unlocked (what part of the firmware was modified), it should have been easy to just refuse the installation. They do it with macs all the time - and I'm sure they could have done it with the iphone too.

 

[megfilmworks]

Do these sim unlocks change the IMEI? That would change the whole picture regarding owner's rights and legalities.

 

[PDE]

Do these sim unlocks change the IMEI? That would change the whole picture regarding owner's rights and legalities.

My iphone's IMEI in the about section is the same as on the box. I unlocked using iunlock. I've unlocked a few iphones for friends too and they all kept the IMEI number too.

 

[flyingdoctor]

My IMEA number is still the same. I'm sure I read somewhere that it is only when you do the upgrade to 1.1.1 that the IMEA number changes. If that happens then Apple / AT& T know it has been unlocked.

 

[DeathChill]

"Apple has multiple ways of upgrading the [firmware of the] baseband [radio chip] without committing a 500,000-phone massacre.
First, they can issue a secpack [security pack] for everything in the firmware. They could simply issue one of these to restore the value if a regular token is not detected, thus rewriting this part to its original state. This process would most likely defeat any unlock available, Dev Team or iPhone Sim Free, without bricking the iPhone in any way.

New firmware updates could also employ new firmware which closes the loophole that allows the use of a secpack for other operations. They could make this method of updating even resistant to tampering or abuse for a unlock. The possibilities are there."

See, all Apple had to do was update in a slightly different way and it would have not harmed any of the phones. It would also have fixed any phones that had accidentally screwed up without the use of hacks.

 

[sananda]

I am *not* assuming. IT IS A FACT - in exchange for the exclusive carrier contract, AT&T are part-subsidising the cost of the iPhone to make it more affordable for end users.

could you please point us to the authority for this fact?