Had she signed a coffee-user's agreement stating that she was aware that coffee is hot and has the potential to burn?
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.
iPhone 1.1.1 Aftermath
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Had she signed a coffee-user's agreement stating that she was aware that coffee is hot and has the potential to burn?
Unfortunately, the criminal seems to have more rights than the victim, especially in the UK.
Yes I know.. I'm just saying the UK seems particularly bad with giving criminal more rights than the victim.
That particular macdonalds case is a highlight for taking the piss out of the u.s legal system - the over use of legal action.
Though, interesting article about the temperature of coffee ( and other things ):
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html
EDIT MacDonalds was sued in the UK for a similar case, the case was lost ( in favour of MacDonalds ):
http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/09/british_hot_coffee_bogle_v_mcd.html
Sorry, this is way off topic
Ok, something just came to thought. Does any one here think Apple planned this from the beginning? I'll explain.
As the updates are released, new features are being added to the iPhone, such as TV out (a feature the video iPod has had). Certainly the iPhone had the hardware ability to use this "new" feature, yet Apple decides only now to release this feature with update 1.1.1. Ok, fine, makes sense I suppose... but wait...
This new update also addresses third party apps (for arguments sake I will not be addressing the unlocking issues, let's just concentrate on third party app's and graphical changes such as the home screen icons, etc.). It also adds features that the iPhone has been capable of doing since its release, and the TV Out feature is pretty handy and nice for a video capable device. Yet, you have to let go of third party app's, etc. in order to use it. So Apple has held back certain features that the iPhone can handle and that already exist on other Apple devices in order to release them as "updates" that also address disabling owners from users other features that Apple doesn't want its owners to use. Interesting eh.
So, Apple says "Hey, we have an optional update, it will take away third party app's that we certainly expected certain owners to use, but you also won't get features that we could have put into the iPhone when it was released." It's like dangling a carrot in front of owners, you can't have this optional (yes, I know it's optional) update with newly "enabled" features without losing other features.
I'm certain other updates are in store with more "features" (and I'm fairly certain video recording may be one of them), and these updates will certainly address future hacking of the device. Did Apple intentionally leave out planned features in order to dangle that carrot with updates that would surely address third party app's, etc? Seems very likely.
Now, the other point I take issue with are the comments suggesting that Apple is disabling hacking/third party applications for the safety and security of the owners. Bull****. I believe that as much as I believe Verizon Wireless' claims that they disabled the ObEx (bluetooth file exchange) on all their phones (including the Motorola v710, for which they were successfully sued for in California and were forced to pay v710 owners back for doing so) because of "security issues" (when in reality it was to force Verizon Wireless customers to use "Get it Now", a pay service to upload and download images and sounds to their hand held devices/phones). Eventually Verizon Wireless admitted it was a "business decision", one that is fully in their rights (the California courts disagreed of course). Information on the 2005 lawsuit here: http://www.mobiledia.com/news/37069.html ...
Also, wouldn't someone have to physically obtain the phone in order to install a third party app? Bluetooth is a fairly secure connection, requiring pairing in order to obtain a connection. If it wasn't so secure it wouldn't be widely used in cars, headsets, etc. Also, WiFI connections depend on the security of the WiFi network, otherwise unsecured routers will always be unsecured regardless of the iPhones own security. Thus, stating it is for the protection of the device and the security of the iPhone's owner is erroneous. My Cingular RAZR had and still has fully enabled bluetooth, I can still use it to download and upload my own images and ringtones and there hasn't been any issue with someone breaking into my RAZR and downloading /uploading software to "steal" anything or "control" anything.
Basically, people are split here. The issue isn't iPhone owners "crying" (and I love that the maturity level in these forums is so high that certain commentators have resorted to calling others "babies", etc., etc.; very comforting knowing that some people can debate this with maturity), but how far is too far with regards to how a company may control a device that by law consumers have paid to own (and there was no subsidizing by ATT, only full price for full ownership, and others have pointed out that it is ATT policy to unlock phones after a certain period of time, even phones that owners have paid a reduced price for in exchange for signing a one or two year contract, something that is not allowed for the iPhone).
So, Apple sells a device with required two year contract at full price. Apple decides to release features through occasional updates through iTunes, features that are hardware dependent but that have not been enabled when the iPhone was released, features such as TV Out that the video iPod has had since its release in 2005. The downside to these optional updates is the owner will not be allowed to use the newly enabled features without losing the ability to have third party applications (something that wasn't sold with the iPhone but without encryption is capable of handling) on a device that they own (and please, enough with the "hardware v software" ownership, the hardware/device is simply a piece of metal and plastic without the software, and the software was sold with the phone, thus you can't have one without the other, thus the consumer owns the software sold with the device - don't we pay $129 for Mac OS X out of the box? This argument of "virtual" ownership is bull****. Moreover, computers are sold everyday, as well as Palm devices, that allow for third party applications, so certainly Apple's iPhone running a "light" version os OS X can handle third party applications "securely", as with their other OS X enabled computers/devices. Stating it is for "security reasons" is simply PR crap).
What are the reasons? Most likely to keep people from using their own ringtones, forcing them to buy them on iTunes (and "fair play" laws have established that once you purchase music you may do with it as you like as long as the user is not profiting from said ownership, which the courts have already ruled is not the case with ringtones, thus Apple is simply pushing ringtones sales from RIAA pressure and for profit. Jobs and the courts also allow the disabling of DRM through burning DRM protected songs on CD, then reimporting them, further supporting the "fair play" law that song owners may do with purchased songs as they wish, as long as they do not profit personally from said ownership), as well as the possibility that Apple may sell third party applications through iTunes some day down the road, which is very probable (third party applications such as iLife, Microsoft Office, etc. are certainly an example of such with Mac OS X, and games are already being sold for the iPod on iTunes, so why not with the iPhone?).
What this comes down to, my friends, is money. More money, more things to be sold, more profit, more money out of our pockets. Is it legal? Sure. No question about it. Is it right? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is new territory. Software, hardware, all of it, the law hasn't caught up with the technology yet, and we are essentially guinea pigs. There are arguments for both sides, with valid points. Until case precedents are established, there isn't much we can do but play by Apple's rules, agreements or not.
As the updates are released, new features are being added to the iPhone, such as TV out (a feature the video iPod has had). Certainly the iPhone had the hardware ability to use this "new" feature, yet Apple decides only now to release this feature with update 1.1.1. Ok, fine, makes sense I suppose... but wait...
This new update also addresses third party apps (for arguments sake I will not be addressing the unlocking issues, let's just concentrate on third party app's and graphical changes such as the home screen icons, etc.). It also adds features that the iPhone has been capable of doing since its release, and the TV Out feature is pretty handy and nice for a video capable device. Yet, you have to let go of third party app's, etc. in order to use it. So Apple has held back certain features that the iPhone can handle and that already exist on other Apple devices in order to release them as "updates" that also address disabling owners from users other features that Apple doesn't want its owners to use. Interesting eh.
So, Apple says "Hey, we have an optional update, it will take away third party app's that we certainly expected certain owners to use, but you also won't get features that we could have put into the iPhone when it was released." It's like dangling a carrot in front of owners, you can't have this optional (yes, I know it's optional) update with newly "enabled" features without losing other features.
I'm certain other updates are in store with more "features" (and I'm fairly certain video recording may be one of them), and these updates will certainly address future hacking of the device. Did Apple intentionally leave out planned features in order to dangle that carrot with updates that would surely address third party app's, etc? Seems very likely.
Now, the other point I take issue with are the comments suggesting that Apple is disabling hacking/third party applications for the safety and security of the owners. Bull****. I believe that as much as I believe Verizon Wireless' claims that they disabled the ObEx (bluetooth file exchange) on all their phones (including the Motorola v710, for which they were successfully sued for in California and were forced to pay v710 owners back for doing so) because of "security issues" (when in reality it was to force Verizon Wireless customers to use "Get it Now", a pay service to upload and download images and sounds to their hand held devices/phones). Eventually Verizon Wireless admitted it was a "business decision", one that is fully in their rights (the California courts disagreed of course). Information on the 2005 lawsuit here: http://www.mobiledia.com/news/37069.html ...
Also, wouldn't someone have to physically obtain the phone in order to install a third party app? Bluetooth is a fairly secure connection, requiring pairing in order to obtain a connection. If it wasn't so secure it wouldn't be widely used in cars, headsets, etc. Also, WiFI connections depend on the security of the WiFi network, otherwise unsecured routers will always be unsecured regardless of the iPhones own security. Thus, stating it is for the protection of the device and the security of the iPhone's owner is erroneous. My Cingular RAZR had and still has fully enabled bluetooth, I can still use it to download and upload my own images and ringtones and there hasn't been any issue with someone breaking into my RAZR and downloading /uploading software to "steal" anything or "control" anything.
Basically, people are split here. The issue isn't iPhone owners "crying" (and I love that the maturity level in these forums is so high that certain commentators have resorted to calling others "babies", etc., etc.; very comforting knowing that some people can debate this with maturity
), but how far is too far with regards to how a company may control a device that by law consumers have paid to own (and there was no subsidizing by ATT, only full price for full ownership, and others have pointed out that it is ATT policy to unlock phones after a certain period of time, even phones that owners have paid a reduced price for in exchange for signing a one or two year contract, something that is not allowed for the iPhone). So, Apple sells a device with required two year contract at full price. Apple decides to release features through occasional updates through iTunes, features that are hardware dependent but that have not been enabled when the iPhone was released, features such as TV Out that the video iPod has had since its release in 2005. The downside to these optional updates is the owner will not be allowed to use the newly enabled features without losing the ability to have third party applications (something that wasn't sold with the iPhone but without encryption is capable of handling) on a device that they own (and please, enough with the "hardware v software" ownership, the hardware/device is simply a piece of metal and plastic without the software, and the software was sold with the phone, thus you can't have one without the other, thus the consumer owns the software sold with the device - don't we pay $129 for Mac OS X out of the box? This argument of "virtual" ownership is bull****. Moreover, computers are sold everyday, as well as Palm devices, that allow for third party applications, so certainly Apple's iPhone running a "light" version os OS X can handle third party applications "securely", as with their other OS X enabled computers/devices. Stating it is for "security reasons" is simply PR crap).
What are the reasons? Most likely to keep people from using their own ringtones, forcing them to buy them on iTunes (and "fair play" laws have established that once you purchase music you may do with it as you like as long as the user is not profiting from said ownership, which the courts have already ruled is not the case with ringtones, thus Apple is simply pushing ringtones sales from RIAA pressure and for profit. Jobs and the courts also allow the disabling of DRM through burning DRM protected songs on CD, then reimporting them, further supporting the "fair play" law that song owners may do with purchased songs as they wish, as long as they do not profit personally from said ownership), as well as the possibility that Apple may sell third party applications through iTunes some day down the road, which is very probable (third party applications such as iLife, Microsoft Office, etc. are certainly an example of such with Mac OS X, and games are already being sold for the iPod on iTunes, so why not with the iPhone?).
What this comes down to, my friends, is money. More money, more things to be sold, more profit, more money out of our pockets. Is it legal? Sure. No question about it. Is it right? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is new territory. Software, hardware, all of it, the law hasn't caught up with the technology yet, and we are essentially guinea pigs. There are arguments for both sides, with valid points. Until case precedents are established, there isn't much we can do but play by Apple's rules, agreements or not.
I guess you have never seen the sheer amount of amazing applications in installer.app. All that is GONE now. Of course when you install the new update, the apps will be erased. But the new install not only throws them in the trash but it also locks them out so you can't put back the apps once 1.1.1 is on your phone. This is a serious hit (and a slap on the face) to all iPhone developers out there.
You're the one with a 100 posts in this thread and you tell me this. To bad I'm stuck at work right now so I had nothing better to do but I diffenently remembered that because you were so adamant about this when I knew you were wrong. Must of hit a nerve.
Why Apple was right
Because Apple's revenue sharing deal with AT&T requires Apple (by contractual obligation) to prevent un-authorised unlocking of the iphone. This deal also will insist that the phone is closed to 3rd party software which could undermine the telephony revenues. Apple are obliged to take steps to keep the phone closed. They have to be seen to do something. They launch 1.1.1
Why Apple was wrong
Because some of the most loyal and the most enthusiastic Apple customers have been burned by the 1.1.1 update. It sends out a message which is more Microsoft than Apple. Half of Apple's marketing machine is the good will of the enthusiasts. Furthermore the legality of Apple's actions are dubious.
The Way Ahead
Locking phones to specific service providers is clearly anti-consumer and anti-competitive. Many countries acknowledge the customer's right to change network once they own the phone handset. Even in the US!
A well-constructed legal challenge may prevent Apple from keeping the phone locked. And that ruling would over-ride the AT&T deal. Apple might have to just abandon that deal and sell the phone unlocked at full price.
If this happens it would be good for the consumer but even better for Apple. AT&T provided the training wheels for Apple's cellphone venture. The sooner the wheels come off, the better. Apple tried to play by the carrier's rulebook and it didn't work out. Instead Apple have to go it alone and suddenly have themselves a massively disruptive product. Other carriers fall over themselves to pick up iPhone customers. They all roll out visual voicemail and compete to provide cheap unlimited data plans.
It's possible that this is all going exactly according to plan.
C.
Because Apple's revenue sharing deal with AT&T requires Apple (by contractual obligation) to prevent un-authorised unlocking of the iphone. This deal also will insist that the phone is closed to 3rd party software which could undermine the telephony revenues. Apple are obliged to take steps to keep the phone closed. They have to be seen to do something. They launch 1.1.1
Why Apple was wrong
Because some of the most loyal and the most enthusiastic Apple customers have been burned by the 1.1.1 update. It sends out a message which is more Microsoft than Apple. Half of Apple's marketing machine is the good will of the enthusiasts. Furthermore the legality of Apple's actions are dubious.
The Way Ahead
Locking phones to specific service providers is clearly anti-consumer and anti-competitive. Many countries acknowledge the customer's right to change network once they own the phone handset. Even in the US!
A well-constructed legal challenge may prevent Apple from keeping the phone locked. And that ruling would over-ride the AT&T deal. Apple might have to just abandon that deal and sell the phone unlocked at full price.
If this happens it would be good for the consumer but even better for Apple. AT&T provided the training wheels for Apple's cellphone venture. The sooner the wheels come off, the better. Apple tried to play by the carrier's rulebook and it didn't work out. Instead Apple have to go it alone and suddenly have themselves a massively disruptive product. Other carriers fall over themselves to pick up iPhone customers. They all roll out visual voicemail and compete to provide cheap unlimited data plans.
It's possible that this is all going exactly according to plan.
C.
Then why do AT&T sell other phones that allow third party apps - including VOIP?
Stopping Apple from 3rd paryt apps, but allowing other manufacturers just doesn't make much sense.
I think its an Apple decision more than AT&T.
EDIT:
The truth is no one knows which is to 'blame', we can only speculate.
Stopping Apple from 3rd paryt apps, but allowing other manufacturers just doesn't make much sense.
I think its an Apple decision more than AT&T.
EDIT:
The truth is no one knows which is to 'blame', we can only speculate.
I do not own an iPhone (too $$ for my taste). But I have a coworker here who had installer.app installed and some of the apps were quite nice (we especially liked the real OpenSSH client). I understand people are bummed, and yes it does suck.... a lot. And in my opinion a bad business move by Apple. But I don't feel Apple did any illegal, as many here claim. They never sold the iPhone touting 3rd party apps (in fact warned against them). So people should be screaming about WANTING the feature of 3rd party apps, not claiming Apple is criminal in disabling them. I really think this is more of an AT&T move than an Apple one. Apple needs to lock down the phone's file system in order to keep the iPhone's underlying hardware from being flashed to allow non AT&T SIMS. This locking also disables all 3rd party apps. Now my guess (well HOPE anyway) is that Apple will reopen a chroot'd part of the file system (this is OS X) to allow a sandbox for non Apple software. All of this assuming AT&T didn't for see this possibility and have a stipulation that Apple has to block all 3rd party apps so AT&T can later sell them to users (much like Verizons Get It Now (TM). Lame for the consumer and makes Apple look bad.... but could be strictly an AT&T call.
In fact, reverse-engineering and modifying copyrighted software for the sole purpose of untethering a phone from a specific network's SIM card is exactly the sort of modification that is explicitly permitted (regardless of the license under which that copyrighted work was granted to you) by current USA regulation.
Apple's EULA uses words to the effect of:
The license specifically states that you have certain statutory rights under law. If you modify the software for any purpose other than those granted by applicable law, then you are in violation of their EULA. As a copyright holder, Apple can require anybody proven to be in violation of the license agreement to relinquish all rights to make any use of its copyrighted work.
So the unlockers, protected by "applicable law" are actually in better shape than the 3rd-party application advocates.
In all this, I mean that Apple would be justified in suing anybody found to be using 3rd party applications on their iPhones for copyright violation, but if all they found was an iPhone that was running on a 3rd party network, they would not be able to prove copyright violation.
So it's ironic that the people who've only installed 3rd party applications but didn't do the SIM unlock (and in doing so, did violate the EULA) ended up with completely functional phones after the 1.1.1 upgrade, except that the 3rd party apps are gone. While people for whom the only reason to jailbreak the phone was so that it would be possible to do the SIM unlock (and in doing so didn't break Apple's EULA according to term 1.c) are the ones that end up with totally nonfunctional phones post-upgrade.
That being said, again, I'll repeat that I don't think Apple would be found in the wrong for anything it's done so far with firmware update 1.1.1.
Jeez Apple, just open the iPhone up to developers. The SIM card part I can sorta understand, but an SDK? You do a great job protecting OSX, and I can't imagine the iPhone OSX would be any less stable. I rely on my computer much more than I do my phone. God knows my old Motorolas crashed frequently and often.
...an earlier posted mentioned that their Sony Ericsson phone requires you to buy ringtones from their store, like Apple. The good news for you (and me) is that it doesn't. I have, actually, an SE 790a (cybershot cameraphone) that I got a few months before the iphone came out, unlocked on Amazon, I use it on an ATT network and it does in fact allow me to put whatever mp3s I want on my phone; and you can use any sound clip that's shorter than 30 seconds as a ringtone. If the iphone had that, i'd probably buy it....because i could then sync w/ ical etc., and get a bigger screen for watching movies. But, I'll live.....(and, as I've watched this whole 3rd party apps thing unfold I've become more convinced that I've made the right choice staying away....and am happy to wait to see how this whole thing shales out)
I think AT&T is much pickier about the exclusivity to the iPhone, because they put substantial investment in their network to enable some iPhone features (ie visual voicemail). They didn't have to make network investments to allow your Sony. So I'm sure they told Apple they'd revamp their voicemail system IF the iPhone would only be used on their network. It was a bargaining tool.
I think most are pissed about the snuffing out of 3rd party apps, not the unlock.
I'm not sure what having a loan calculator in the iPhone applications has to do with AT&T exclusivity?
Apple selling only locked iPhones is the most stupid and greedy thing I could have imagined. Just double the price and sell them unlocked, you'll get your revenue up-front and make everyone a lot happier.
I think this is a terrible move by apple. I bought the iPhone expecting to be able to do cool things with 3rd party applications in the future. Now it's looking like that may be a long way off.
I hadn't actually done anything with 3rd pary applications yet, but the fact that I can't is making me consider returning it. I have just sold all my apple stock and bought Nokia stock. It won't be quite as easy to switch phones, but that's the way I'm leaning.
I hadn't actually done anything with 3rd pary applications yet, but the fact that I can't is making me consider returning it. I have just sold all my apple stock and bought Nokia stock. It won't be quite as easy to switch phones, but that's the way I'm leaning.
In all my time at MacRumors, never I have seen whining at this level of intensity. The same goes for the number of utterly absurd analogies.
I just don't get how anybody could even entertain the idea that they have been wronged if their hacked phone was bricked. Did Apple not warn you people enough?
The only thing more absurd to me is the notion that Apple killed iPhones intentionally. That is laughable. I'm sure once Apple realized the security flaws that allowed these hacks to even exist in the first place, they corrected them, and then after testing, they discovered that - WHOOPS - the update might kill hacked iPhones.
So they warned everyone. And people updated anyway. And are now complaining if Apple is acting in an evil, greedy manner.
How is it Apple's responsibility to make sure that software they didn't write, and which your agreement doesn't allow you to install - performs correctly with their own? Haven't they made it clear it is a closed platform?
Should they have denied the update to all the people who didn't hack their iPhones, so they could write different security fixes?
As countless others have pointed out - you don't own the software, not if you buy 100 iPhones. Apple does. You bought a license to use it.
If you didn't understand these things when you bought an iPhone - doom on you. If you hacked your iPhone, didn't heed Apple's warnings to restore it before updating - doom on you.
Shame on Engadget, Digg, and the NYT for fueling this stupidity.
Sheesh. I wish there was a bigger roll eyes smiley.
I just don't get how anybody could even entertain the idea that they have been wronged if their hacked phone was bricked. Did Apple not warn you people enough?
The only thing more absurd to me is the notion that Apple killed iPhones intentionally. That is laughable. I'm sure once Apple realized the security flaws that allowed these hacks to even exist in the first place, they corrected them, and then after testing, they discovered that - WHOOPS - the update might kill hacked iPhones.
So they warned everyone. And people updated anyway. And are now complaining if Apple is acting in an evil, greedy manner.
How is it Apple's responsibility to make sure that software they didn't write, and which your agreement doesn't allow you to install - performs correctly with their own? Haven't they made it clear it is a closed platform?
Should they have denied the update to all the people who didn't hack their iPhones, so they could write different security fixes?
As countless others have pointed out - you don't own the software, not if you buy 100 iPhones. Apple does. You bought a license to use it.
If you didn't understand these things when you bought an iPhone - doom on you. If you hacked your iPhone, didn't heed Apple's warnings to restore it before updating - doom on you.
Shame on Engadget, Digg, and the NYT for fueling this stupidity.
Sheesh.
I wish there was a bigger roll eyes smiley.I don't disagree with the modifying part at all. The part I disagree with is that once you've done that, I can't recall an instance where Apple is under any legal obligation to then support you. If you have cases and/or specific regulations where the hardware vendor is required to provide warranty support on a device using non-vendor supported cards or firmware, I'd be curious to look at the references.
I think you're getting what I was talking about backwards. I was not talking about Apple suing end users but whether Apple had any legal obligation to provide warranty support for "bricked" iPhones.
I would need to see some external references to US regulations that required Apple to provide warranty support for iPhones running unsupported SIM cards or radio firmware. I never once talked about Apple's ability or inability to take legal actaion against people modifying their firmware.
I think warranty support for the folks who only installed third party applications could get a bit trickier. EULAs, in general, have not held up well in the few cases tested in the US. If someone could convince a judge that the iPhone is a portable computer, then Apple is in a difficult situation against those whose phones were bricked by the update. The US courts have been pretty clear that neither Intel nor Microsoft can revoke your license or disable your computer just because you run RealPlayer software on it, for example. Once someone convinces a judge this situation is the same or similar, Apple may as well just cave because fighting it would cost more money.
Locking the Phone to the carrier was certainly part of the deal with AT&T. But you are probably right that preventing installable applications is an Apple thing.
The Apple way of doing things is to allow consumers to buy Apple ratified applications through iTunes. (The video game model). This way Apple gains revenue. An extensible iPhone platform is more valuable to consumers. And Apple prevents badly-written applications from burning-up the battery life of the device (as they do at the moment).
With a bit of luck, this could all come right for Apple. But I think there's no doubt that damage has been done in the short term. I think it's time for another letter from our glorious leader.
C.
The Apple way of doing things is to allow consumers to buy Apple ratified applications through iTunes. (The video game model). This way Apple gains revenue. An extensible iPhone platform is more valuable to consumers. And Apple prevents badly-written applications from burning-up the battery life of the device (as they do at the moment).
With a bit of luck, this could all come right for Apple. But I think there's no doubt that damage has been done in the short term. I think it's time for another letter from our glorious leader.
C.
In all my time at MacRumors, never I have seen whining at this level of intensity....
Shame on Engadget, Digg, and the NYT for fueling this stupidity.
Sheesh.
Yeah, they are all in bed with the Devil, using those 3rd party apps!
But you are all smug in the Church of the Apple, 'cause you KNOW Steve will save you. Have another Kool Aid.
So how is apple determining that the bricked iphones were hacked ones? I saw them take a persons phone in the back and then come back and say sorry can't do anything. Do they hook it up to check? How can they say its hacked? They would have to un-brick it to find out. If they are doing that are they re-bricking it to give back to the customer? Sleezy practice man.