At least I used nice language. Nice welcome.
I *do* like my *1.0.2* iPhone. So I won't "but" something else.
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.
Boycott 1.1.1
- Thread starter MacToddB
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
At least I used nice language. Nice welcome.
I *do* like my *1.0.2* iPhone. So I won't "but" something else.
Isn't there a term for that? Oh yeah, EVANGELIST. If anyone is proselytizing here, it's the Apple-can-do-no-wrong defenders.
For the last time, I LIKED WHAT I BOUGHT. I STILL HAVE IT. I INTEND TO KEEP IT, BUT KEEP IT AT 1.0.2, at least until a native iChat is available. I WOULD LOVE APPLE TO JUST SAY "it's coming". This whole website is dedicated to speculating on what's next, so I say hold off on 1.1.1 because you cannot DOWNGRADE firmware. The value in 1.0.2, with third party apps, is more compelling than 1.1.1, in my eyes. International travelers, Starbucks regulars, etc., can disagree. But I'm entitled to recommend sticking to 1.0.2...after all, we're both recommending iPhones...just different ones/levels.
No, I just thought your idea for a lawsuit was piss poor.
Why does everyone assume that those who are "defending Apple" are doing just that? I MUST be an Apple lover zealot because I think a lawsuit against them, in which there is no proof, is a bad idea.
Personally, I like that you want to let them know that you would love to have iChat and 3rd party software development on the iPhone. I just think how you wish to go about it sucks. Boycotting 1.1.1 is better than a lawsuit that won't win but in order for it to work you really need a lot of people behind it. A better way would be to contact Apple or at least send them lots of feedback.
Do you mean, do I agree with Steve Jobs view of DRM? Yes. I typically convert purchased songs to MP3 for their universal compatibility. Bit of a pain, but yes, I do prefer fair use, universal playing of purchased songs.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
MP3's have DRM. Are you against DRM?
Asking your view on the stance.
Edit......So you buy DRM'd music from iTunes, rip it to MP3 to rid the DRM? That is what you are saying?
I believe you're a bit confused. The phones that haven't been altered are working and will continue to work and are supported by Apple and AT&T.
It's unlikely that you can win a lawsuit when you went against the agreement you already confirmed.
No, I just thought your idea for a lawsuit was piss poor.
Why does everyone assume that those who are "defending Apple" are doing just that? I MUST be an Apple lover zealot because I think a lawsuit against them, in which there is no proof, is a bad idea.
You can't deny that there has been a kneejerk reaction to defend Apple by some, and plenty of 'you don't like it, tough' responses. Like those who say if you don't like a certain politician, you should move to Canada. I didn't point at you... in fact, I think this is your first post on this thread. My original post (now removed) went into great deal about my 25+ year love affair with Apple. I didn't even mention my Newton, and Motorola Marco (running Newton OS).
I have done that, several times and in several mechanisms. I'm open to suggestions. BTW, a lawsuit doesn't have to win to accomplish the goal. Apple is a public company (facing a stock option scandal) and sometimes all that is needed is public pressure. Look at the $100 rebate. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's legal counsel (just resigned today, hmmm) might have played some part?
MP3's have DRM? Do you mean they have a copyright? Or actual rights management licensing software? I've always thought they were non-DRM. Anyway, my stance is the same as Steve Jobs.
Yes. Before my iPhone, I owned a non-iPod MP3 player. So I had to convert iTunes (and purchased CDs) to MP3. Bit of a pain, but gave me the flexibility to play on my MP3 player. I used iTunes because I have a Mac Mini hooked up to my 42" LCD TV and I use FrontRow, etc.
I had posted in the removed thread so I know what the issues were which is why I said, "No, I just thought your idea for a lawsuit was piss poor." This is my first post in this particular thread because I was eating with my wife earlier.
Since I've been following your threads on this issue from the beginning I don't think the kneejerk reaction was because people love Apple. I think it was because Apple was very clear when they announced the iPhone in January, 6 months before sale, that they weren't going to support 3rd party development of which your issue deals with. Now that they've come out with an update that breaks those apps you have a problem. You knew full well when you bought the device that that may eventually happen. THAT is the entire reason for people "defending Apple."
Again, I have no problem with you wanting iChat functionality (why they haven't included that is way beyond me). But, like I said, your methods for going about getting 3rd party development supported, in my opinion, are a waste of your time, money and energy.
If you give Apple feedback, don't expect them to fix it overnight. Give them a few months ... at least one.
It takes one day to say "iChat is coming". I don't need it fixed overnight. They only seem to respond quickly when there's a public outcry, as in the rebate fiasco... BTW, I didn't complain about that. As with the Newton, 128K Mac, etc. I'm a committed early adopter, and my issues are independent of money. I'd buy Apple's ringtones if they had speechtones, etc. I'd buy iChat if they'd sell it. I don't know what the best way to get through to them that in 2007, Instant Messaging isn't a luxury, especially for a state-of-the-art smartphone, or excuse me, "Breakthrough Internet Communications Device" as Steve Jobs called it at MacWorld.
That's because it takes time and money to respond. If there is a public outcry then it is financially sound to do so. If not, why waste the resources? Don't think that the tiny bubble that is MacRumors and/or other Mac related forums is a public outcry because that'll give you a false sense every time.
Agreed. Hence the question, what can be done to raise the level so it reaches Steve's ears? Boycott? Lawsuit? Does AT&T play a role? Are they trying to sell SMS?
Ah, come on. It's not like 1.1.1 isn't going to be hacked to allow 3rd party applications, and It's also most likely to be SIM unlocked. As Steve Jobs said: "It's a constant cat and mouse game". After each iPhone update there's going to be a few weeks of downtime with hacks and 3rd party applications(if not a few days), then eventually a hacker is going to figure out how to hack it, and then sometime later Apple release another update that locks it down again. This will go on and on. No computer security system is impenetrable.
I personally think that in the long run, Apple will release a native iPhone SDK for third parties, as there's an obvious demand for that. Until then, hackers will be there.
I personally think that in the long run, Apple will release a native iPhone SDK for third parties, as there's an obvious demand for that. Until then, hackers will be there.
Are these issues of wanting or needing here? If you are complaining about NEEDING iChat and other specific apps from Apple that you knew were not on the phone, then you are an idiot for buying iPhone. You purchased iPhone knowing exactly what was on it, there was no secret that it didn't have GPS, 3G, MMS, Flash, or AIM client. You even knew there were no ringtones when you purchased the iPhone. Complaining about Apple not giving you these things is retarded. You don't go buy a fridge after looking at it and then be mad because there isn't food in it when it gets delivered, do you? My point is this... you knew what the phone had when you bought it and if you wanted more you should have purchased a different phone. Boycotting the update is dumb since the update also contains security fixes.
If you are wanting Apple to provide you new cool tools to use then boycotting and showing them people don't download upgrades wont work. That will only show them people don't want or care about updates and will harm any chances of 3rd party support from Apple in the future. You can want or hope for new apps all you want, but in no way does Apple NEED to provide us with new apps or tools. You are using what you paid for, if you are unhappy about that then return your phone or sell it because you made a bad decision in purchasing your cell phone.
If you are wanting Apple to provide you new cool tools to use then boycotting and showing them people don't download upgrades wont work. That will only show them people don't want or care about updates and will harm any chances of 3rd party support from Apple in the future. You can want or hope for new apps all you want, but in no way does Apple NEED to provide us with new apps or tools. You are using what you paid for, if you are unhappy about that then return your phone or sell it because you made a bad decision in purchasing your cell phone.
The best legal analysis I have seen so far is this article:
http://www.phonenews.com/content/view/2386/9/
As a lawyer, I feel the need to convey the the importance of case law. (I am not talking down to non-lawyers, I only learned this when I went to law school and simply feel that everyone should have some basic legal knowledge.)
Even if a law does not expressly say something, the courts may take a broader view of the law. If a contract provision is contrary to the law, the contract provision is void. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act clearly presents a problem with Apple's current stance.
If Apple intentionally detected the modifications and went out of their way to cripple people's phones, they are dead.
If the firmware upgrade simply resulted in an iBrick, Apple must establish that the modification or enhancement is responsible damaging the product in question, if they are going to deny iPhone owners any of Apple's standard attempts at service. This aspect is the likely loser for Apple because there are apparently unmodified iPhones turning into iBricks. Apple seems to have a method to restore these phones to their original state.
In summary, unless Apple can establish that the modification is the cause of the damage, Apple must at least attempt its basic restore.
http://www.phonenews.com/content/view/2386/9/
As a lawyer, I feel the need to convey the the importance of case law. (I am not talking down to non-lawyers, I only learned this when I went to law school and simply feel that everyone should have some basic legal knowledge.)
Even if a law does not expressly say something, the courts may take a broader view of the law. If a contract provision is contrary to the law, the contract provision is void. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act clearly presents a problem with Apple's current stance.
If Apple intentionally detected the modifications and went out of their way to cripple people's phones, they are dead.
If the firmware upgrade simply resulted in an iBrick, Apple must establish that the modification or enhancement is responsible damaging the product in question, if they are going to deny iPhone owners any of Apple's standard attempts at service. This aspect is the likely loser for Apple because there are apparently unmodified iPhones turning into iBricks. Apple seems to have a method to restore these phones to their original state.
In summary, unless Apple can establish that the modification is the cause of the damage, Apple must at least attempt its basic restore.
Interesting that as a lawyer you felt that was a good article on the issues. As a non-lawyer but someone intimately familar with retail warranties I think that article is way off the mark.
The law says nothing like he asserts in that article, and the actual case law is even further away from that. Apple is allowed to make changes to their products and to update them. Proving they somehow intentionally might not even get them trouble, but regardless, proving such an allegation is likely not to happen at all.
Sorry, but I see this particular law being misapplied left and right here. I appreciate that you are a laywer, but you are going to have to be a bit more convincing to buck my extensive experience with such issues in real-world circumstances.
Warranty law is not exactly a new frontier. The reality is all sorts of businesses and companies and products void warranties for any modifications made to products. It happens every day. Some products will void your warranty for removing a screw on the case. If it did actually come down to trying to claim that the change impacted the device in a negative way, I like Apple's odds of making their case of most plantiffs that might show up on the other side. Paying for the proper witnesses would more than make the case a massive losing proposition.
Thanks for the kinds words.
When I bought the iPhone, Instant Messaging WORKED, thanks to third parties.
Steve Jobs also told us that this was a "Breakthrough Internet Communications Device". That was back in January at Macworld, at a time when every free phone has IM. He said THOSE phones (one of which I owned, a Nokia e62, were "crippled" in his words. It had IM.
I never mentioned those other technologies. My ONLY gripe is Instant Messaging, because it's one of the primary ways we communicate at my company. Keep in mind that with my 1.0.2 iPhone, I AM HAPPY. Stop trying to tell me that IM is an unreasonable request, or that I need to sell my iPhone. I'm just suggesting that people who want true Instant Messaging should boycott 1.1.1. If Apple releases iChat, as I'm amazed they haven't, then the dynamic changes.
Pay attention. I agree. I wanted what I purchased. I don't want the 1.1.1 "downgrade".
This is a lot like Windows XP SP2 or Vista, both of which I consider downgrades and would recommend avoiding. Security fixes are in there, obviously, but so is a lot of code that most users don't want. And some apps/tasks stop working...sound familiar? It's the kind of thing Apple folks love to bash Microsoft over. For the record, Mac at home, PC at work.
I'm happy with my 1.0.2 iPhone, period.
By your logic, everyone should STAY at 1.0.0 or whatever level iPhone when they bought it, and NOT upgrade to 1.1.1 because "we should use what we paid for, period". Why upgrade unless YOU are UNhappy?
At the end of the day, it's a shame that iChat isn't in this "Breakthrough Internet Communications Device".
So were you misinformed, ignorant or wildly optimistic at that point? Because it was pretty overtly clear that 3rd party apps were not authorized. That's like buying a DirecTV box because your buddy has a hacked card and then getting upset when DirecTV turns it off. "But I bought this crappy service because I got free HBO." That's your "logic"? Wow.
if IM'ing is critical to how you communicate at work and you have to use a hack to get it to work the way you want on your phone, don't you think you probably bought the wrong phone?
I sure do.
I sure do.