Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yeah, they are all in bed with the Devil, using those 3rd party apps!:eek:

But you are all smug in the Church of the Apple, 'cause you KNOW Steve will save you. Have another Kool Aid.:apple:

What? :confused:

Steve didn't have to save me from anything, my iPhone (1.1.1) works beautifully. If it didn't, I'd take it back and get a new one.

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.

I don't know how the jailbreaking works. I don't know how the firmware update works. I don't know why some non-hacked phones got bricked. All I know is, Apple warned people hacked phones, and people updated anyway.

If the unsupported 3rd party apps were more important to them than the security fixes and updates, they could have heeded those warnings and not updated. As they have said, their phones worked before updating.

Again, I fail to see the issue. Or the malice.
 
Java script is working differently in 1.1.1. Anyone that banks with HSBC will notice they cant log into internet banking because safari keeps crashing. Hsbc uses java for a keyboard on screen to input a password. However anytime you use the onscreen keyboard the safari keyboard pops up. After a another key stroke on the onscreen keyboard safari crashes. Anyone else experience this problem? Everything worked in 1.0.2 and earlier. Kinda makes me mad...
 
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.


I don't own an iPhone either, but for different reasons than yours.

I don't understand why people are bummed, though. I remember the posts coming out after the announcement of the iPhone and that Apple had provided no SDK for 3rd party apps but eventually, a Safari website workaround was created, until Apple, the creator of the iPhone and it's OS, decides on one. SDK that is.

That didn't seem to prevent Developers from going around Apple's back and doing it their way. Nor did it stop the throngs of iPhone owners from jailbreaking, unlocking, hacking, or installing apps...

I read on some posts where Apple may have done this "bricking" and stuff intentionally... I say you are probably right. Not to piss you off, but because you pissed off Steve and Apple! Firmware 1.1.1 is SJ's and Apples way of saying, "serves you right" and... Well, I won't go any further with the platitudes I could give!

And don't give me that tired argument how Steve was a hacker... times have changed... phones used to be wired, armies used to fight Napoleon style, immigrants used to be no problem when America was young and had less worldly problems to deal with... but times change, things change, companies change, people change, apple enthusiasts change...
 
I think you said it all right there. :rolleyes:

Are you saying you understand the iPhone's software, Apple's updates, and the hackers' code all well enough to know that Apple killed hacked phones intentionally? You seem to believe that's what they did, correct?

What would you do if you were Apple, in the exact same situation? Please don't say release an API or SDK. I'm talking about in regards to the update.
 
Are you saying you understand the iPhone's software, Apple's updates, and the hackers' code all well enough to know that Apple killed hacked phones intentionally? You seem to believe that's what they did, correct?

What would you do if you were Apple, in the exact same situation? Please don't say release an API or SDK. I'm talking about in regards to the update.

Simply release an update to unbrick brick phones. Not hard. Right thing to do.
 
What? :confused:

...my iPhone (1.1.1) works beautifully. If it didn't, I'd take it back and get a new one....

So, you DO in fact expect Steve to save you....:rolleyes:


I don't know how the jailbreaking works. I don't know how the firmware update works. I don't know why some non-hacked phones got bricked....

So, you don't know much about this, do you? You just have faith, that Apple is NEVER at fault....

Get my point now?
 
Reason 382 why I will never get an iPhone in its current form
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9116
Its a good think Apple has morals when it comes to choosing its partners or I'd be annoyed.

Holy Ch***, are you kidding me?!?! This kills me:

"The new legal policy takes away a customer’s right to criticize AT&T without the fear of losing their service. In many rural areas where the only phone provider and Internet service provider is AT&T, this effectively means that any criticism of AT&T could leave them without data service. The section of the AT&T Legal Policy that takes away the customers constitutional right to free speech reads:

5.1 Suspension/Termination… [AT&T] may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

Some will say that AT&T has the right to refuse service to anyone. At the same time, others will say that refusing service to someone for simply criticizing AT&T is infringing on the right to free speech. For many Internet access is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Many business professionals work from home and use broadband Internet access to connect to corporate networks. For those that are tied in with AT&T’s service (by choice or because there are no other options available), one should be careful not to step on AT&T’s toes or face disconnection."

So ATT monitors internet dialog and may suspend or terminate your account if you criticize their service?! This is insanity. I liked Cingular, as I was their customer before ATT bought them out. I was going to switch to T-Mobile as I didn't like Verizon Wireless' business tactics as their customer for 10+ years, and I didn't like ATT's crap they pulled with wireless tapping and the Bush administration. Now this?! I wish Jobs went with T-Mobile sometimes (regardless of how their service may be, they don't pull crap with their customers as much as Verizon and Cingular have).
 
5.1 Suspension/Termination… [AT&T] may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.
Would this stand up in court? "believes" and "tends" are pretty loose terms.
 
I've seen that language in terms of service of phones, internet services, etc. It's nothing new that is specific to the iPhone contract. It's boilerplate that essentially means, if you use their service to send out spam like F U ATT or something, they reserve the right to suspend your service. It usually has to be pretty bad, though, like you're waging a campaign against them, before they bother with something like that. This is not a big deal. Remember, this is a private service.
 
I've seen that language in terms of service of phones, internet services, etc. It's nothing new that is specific to the iPhone contract. It's boilerplate that essentially means, if you use their service to send out spam like F U ATT or something, they reserve the right to suspend your service. It usually has to be pretty bad, though, like you're waging a campaign against them, before they bother with something like that. This is not a big deal. Remember, this is a private service.

Ok, that makes sense. However, taken in context with ATT's stance on wireless tapping and privacy issues, they don't seem too concerned with maintaining their customers' privacy. In fact, there would be no privacy in regards to ATT enforcing such a regulation. Legally, if this is to be taken at face value, ATT could state that correspondences between their customer and other parties in which said customer makes disparaging remarks about ATT would be grounds for termination, whether in the context of a public forum or between two private parties. Either way, monitoring of said customer's personal and private exchanges would be required in order for ATT Wireless, etc. to enforce said protocol.
 
I like how people make claim about the facts. The facts are this. Apple bricked a crap load of iphones. Was it intentional? YES. Why? Because they did it and have not undone it. Plain and simple.

BS.

It's just as likely that:

1) Apple was developing a firmware update that fixed x, y, and z, and/or added features a, b, and c.

2) During testing of the firmware update, Apple discovered that phones which have been modded become inoperable when you apply the update.

3) Apple warned everyone "the next update will break modded phones".

4) The next update broke modded phones.


This doesn't indicate malicious intent on Apple's part. It's more like what happens when a sailboat sails in front of a freighter: the freighter isn't changing course, and the sailboat is performing this action at its own peril, with full warning.

In both cases, neither Apple nor the freighter are required to change their course. Apple has no obligation to re-write their firmware updates around unauthorizes uses of the product, and freighters (due to being the slower heavier vessels, which means less maneuverable) have the right of way on the seas.

In both cases, the negligent party (iPhone modder/sailboat captain) gets squished like a bug. And sailboat captains do complain loudly in these types of situations ... and they're laughed right out of court (or laughed right in to jail, if someone on their sailboat died due to the sailboat captain's negligence).

Was it a malicious/punitive update? or was it a side-effect of a non-malicious update? Anyone outside of Apple who claims to know which is true is probably some form of snake-oil salesman.
 
BS.

It's just as likely that:

1) Apple was developing a firmware update that fixed x, y, and z, and/or added features a, b, and c.

2) During testing of the firmware update, Apple discovered that phones which have been modded become inoperable when you apply the update.

3) Apple warned everyone "the next update will break modded phones".

4) The next update broke modded phones.


This doesn't indicate malicious intent on Apple's part. It's more like what happens when a sailboat sails in front of a freighter: the freighter isn't changing course, and the sailboat is performing this action at its own peril, with full warning.

In both cases, neither Apple nor the freighter are required to change their course. Apple has no obligation to re-write their firmware updates around unauthorizes uses of the product, and freighters (due to being the slower heavier vessels, which means less maneuverable) have the right of way on the seas.

In both cases, the negligent party (iPhone modder/sailboat captain) gets squished like a bug. And sailboat captains do complain loudly in these types of situations ... and they're laughed right out of court (or laughed right in to jail, if someone on their sailboat died due to the sailboat captain's negligence).

Was it a malicious/punitive update? or was it a side-effect of a non-malicious update? Anyone outside of Apple who claims to know which is true is probably some form of snake-oil salesman.


Now thats BS. Or some serious wishful thinking. :p
 
The iPhone is not like any other smartphone. The iPhone is truly a computer. It is a computer that is running a version of Unix called Mac OSX. Think about that. It can support logins and accounts, etc...

Clearly you don't know a lot about the cell phone market.


1) given what the iPhone can do, and can't do, calling it a "smartphone" doesn't make any sense. It has some basic PIM software, a web browser, an MP3 player, and a few things like that. So do tons of other non-smartphones. The iPhone just does it with a better interface.

2) the iPhone is NOT the only unix based cell phone out there. The later revs of the RAZR, for example, are Linux based. And, the Linux based RAZRs were out on the market before the iPhone.

Bullseye! This is the whole problem. They are not offering a way to revert back the phone for use. That my friends is called screwing the customer.

While I would agree that it would be in their best PR interests to provide a "return my iPhone to factory condition" maintenance option ... the argument that what they did MUST have had malicious intent because they haven't provided such an option is just speculation. There's no facts there.
 
Not that they even read these things, but I sent this Apple's iPhone feedback tonight:


I am an iPhone owner from day one and frankly do not appreciate your company's current attack on its user base. I understand your desire to eliminate users from unlocking their phones from AT&T, but actively keeping users from installing 3rd party applications is product suicide. The allure of the iPhone for myself and many others is that it is running a version of OS X and thus allows for an ultra portable computing platform.

I had not installed any apps at the time of the 1.11 update, and frankly regret never getting the chance to enjoy the multitude of helpful 3rd party programs that your update has eliminated. Being a long time Mac user I can't help but wonder if this decision will once again be regarded as a missed opportunity to dominate a computer platform.

Pity

Thanks for letting me vent.

Pete
 
Now thats BS. Or some serious wishful thinking. :p

You're making an assertion: Apple's intent was definitively malicious.

Prove your assertion. Not with logic extrapolated from events, but with actual factual information that shows Apple's intent was malicious. Such as, internal company email that has Steve laughing about how he's about to screw over the modders. Either prove it, or admit that you're just blowing smoke. Put up, or shut up.

(before you ask me to prove mine, I wasn't making an assertion, I was making a case for reasonable doubt, and specifically said that no one outside of apple knows which is the truth)
 
You're making an assertion: Apple's intent was definitively malicious.

Prove your assertion. Not with logic extrapolated from events, but with actual factual information that shows Apple's intent was malicious. Such as, internal company email that has Steve laughing about how he's about to screw over the modders. Either prove it, or admit that you're just blowing smoke. Put up, or shut up.

(before you ask me to prove mine, I wasn't making an assertion, I was making a case for reasonable doubt, and specifically said that no one outside of apple knows which is the truth)

Gee I don't know, maybe because they crushed the ringtone hacks twice and within days and now a total bricking of the iphone from having added any kind of software or sim unlock.

Please come back to reality. It's so obvious man.
 
Gee I don't know, maybe because they crushed the ringtone hacks twice and within days and now a total bricking of the iphone from having added any kind of software or sim unlock.

Please come back to reality. It's so obvious man.

In other words: more speculation and supposition on your part. Still no proof, just more smoke.
 
In other words: more speculation and supposition on your part. Still no proof, just more smoke.

Like I said it's obvious. Sorry you can't grasp the concept. What you want, a signed document by steve jobs stating the obvious? Geez. I think your moms calling. :rolleyes:
 
Like I said it's obvious. Sorry you can't grasp the concept. What you want, a signed document by steve jobs stating the obvious? Geez. I think your moms calling. :rolleyes:

No, what I want is for you to admit that you're just posturing and blowing smoke, instead of stating things as though they are proven facts. You don't know what Apple actually intended, and the facts do not indicate that your opinion of Apple's motivation was in fact Apple's actual motivation.

Suggest it might have been the case? sure.

Prove that it was the case? not even close.

And, as I pointed out, the known facts also fit an entirely different motivation, than the malicious one you present, on Apples part.

There are LOTS of things in our world that seem "obvious" but aren't actually true*. And people like you who try to "prove" a given point of view by just repeating it over and over again, without real facts, are just as much demogogues as what they accuse Jobs of being.

You're just another flavor of snake-oil salesman.


(* and, in this case, no, it doesn't even seem obvious to anyone who isn't out trying to find something to knee-jerk about)
 
My Experience

After several hours at the Apple store and on the phone with customer support this is my experience...

I bricked my phone. I have had 3rd party apps on my phone and I tried to unlock with anySim and it failed but the flash worked so I knew what would happen after the update. After reading that some apple geniuses were un-bricking phones and finding no other way to reverse what I had tried to do I bricked it on purpose and went to the apple store to try my luck.

They refused service and told me there was nothing they could do that I had to buy a new phone. This is what I gathered from the experience. When you update a phone with 1.1.1 that has been unlocked successfully or not it will report back with a message that ONLY appears on unlocked phones. Basically during the update process it identifies your phone somehow as having attempted an unlock and locks you down, your phone will display a new IMEi # that is specific to a phone that has attempted and unlock. The apple store manager in my city informed me that Apple corporate has told stores that when the IMEI # appears it means an unlock attempt has been made and to refuse service, and that the Apple programers designed that message specifically so it could be identified and that the only way t will appear is if an unlock attempt has been made. I took it up with customer support and after a couple of hours of working with them and just not hanging up or allowing the conversation to end they agreed to send me a box for return and they would repair my iPhone. The box arrived today and I am sending it in.

What I believe is that Apple is specifically targeting those who attempted unlocks. Why? No clue. They can easily restore a phone and there are methods on the net now where you can do it yourself and I have full confidence that when I get mine back it will be stock 1.1.1

This is all very strange behavior...

Ill let you know what happens with my phone. In the meantime i'll enjoy my boring newly purchased 1.1.1 iPhone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.