iPhone 1.1.1 Aftermath

[LaDirection]

Apple's position on teh iPhone unlocking is pretty rough, but understandable. Every cell phones gets unlocked soon after it's release, but Apple isn't every cell phone maker.

As for 3rd party applications, I agree that Apple should definitely test everything before it gets release, but not allowing 3rd party applications at all will bite em in the (rear) end. Imagine if we had great touch control games from Sega, or a portable Office reader/editor, or an iPhone VLC to watch divx & xvid etc. All these things would make the iPhone so much more appealing to so many more people.

 

[guzhogi]

small notice : Steve's quote indicates his reluctance towards hardware expandability, there's nothing about software expandability in it

True, but there's no indication in the quote that h's for software expandability, either.

There's a lot of Windows-only hardware out there I'd love to use, but isn't available for Mac. Video cards, sound cards, PhysX cards and specialty stuff. As I said earlier in this thread, it's hard to make all of this hardware to work together well, but not necessarily impossible.

 

[Kinsella217]

Adulthood and personal responsibility...

I bought an iPhone the day it came out. I clearly remember the activation process requiring me to agree to terms of useage, which clearly stated stipulations to the effect that I agree to not alter the hardware or software and if I did, I would lose access to warranty service.

If I was to -not- agree to those terms, I should return the unit where I purchased it. I clicked on the button indicating that I read the agreement and that I agreed to it's terms.

I presume that everyone had to go through that same process?

No one made any individual buy this $400 to $600 phone. It was a consumer's individual choice to make. Agreeing to the terms and conditions was an individual's choice to make. No one made anyone violate those terms and conditions... it was an individual's choice to make.

Furthermore, the software update posted by Apple wasn't mandatory. In days leading up to the release of the update, Apple publically warned iPhone users online that the software was likely to break phones that had been tampered with, in ways violating the original terms and conditions. In front of me, I have a screenshot of a notice offered by the 1.1.1 update. It reads "Warning: Apple has discovered that some of the unauthorized unlocking programs available on the internet may cause irreparable damage.... making unauthorized modifications to the software on your iPhone violates the iPhone software license agreement, and the inability to use your iPhone due to unauthorized software modifications is not covered under your iPhone's warranty".

No one made any iPhone owner disregard that notice, some of which was typed in boldface fonts, and install the update, anyway.

If, for some reason, I decided to violate those terms and conditions, I would hope that I would be enough of an adult to live with the consequences of my decision. At a very minimum, I would hope that people wouldn't yell at retail employees for something that the retail employee had no involvement with. The employee didn't force anyone to buy the phone, the employee didn't force anyone to agree to the terms and conditions of service, the employee didn't encourage anyone to violate those terms and conditions, the employee didn't blind anyone to the public warnings, the employee didn't force anyone to apply the update, and the employee certainly didn't write those terms and conditions.

If there's a lawsuit to be found in this, I only hope that the employee files assualt charges against the customer. That's not very realistic, obviously, but it's the only thing that makes any basic sense to me, in this scenario...

I smell a lawsuit coming and fast. I was just in the apple store and a guy was in there with his locked iphone because of this update. They told him he hacked it and there was nothing he could do. He was yelling like mad. I felt bad for him. Its freakin wrong of apple and they deserve to get sued.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Mac Airlines
All the stewards, stewardesses, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look the same, act the same, and talk the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are told you don't need to know, don't want to know, and would you please return to your seat and watch the movie.

The only way to travel...

 

[DeaconGraves]

Reseting basic parts should at MAX return your device to pre-hacked state. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for the update to brick devices.
Do not even try to tell me that bricking was not intended.

So Apple should be required to put in more work to make sure that its firmware updates correct every possible firmware change that the unlocking programs may have done?

With software loaded on the software, its simple to just clear it out. But seeing how a proper method to "re-lock" the iPhone hasn't really been found yet, why should Apple have to solve it?

Right or wrong (from a moral/greed sense, not a legal one), the path that apple chose is much more efficient.

As for 3rd party applications, I agree that Apple should definitely test everything before it gets release, but not allowing 3rd party applications at all will bite em in the (rear) end. Imagine if we had great touch control games from Sega, or a portable Office reader/editor, or an iPhone VLC to watch divx & xvid etc. All these things would make the iPhone so much more appealing to so many more people.

Yes indeed. And Apple hasn't said that 3rd party support isn't coming in the future. My guess is MacWorld '08 might show some change on this front.

 

[Don.Key]

So Apple should be required to put in more work to make sure that its firmware updates correct every possible firmware change that the unlocking programs may have done?

Simple corrections to your sentence:

Apple should not put in more work to make sure that its firmware updates break every possible firmware change that the unlocking programs may have done!

 

[megfilmworks]

Mac Airlines
All the stewards, stewardesses, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look the same, act the same, and talk the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are told you don't need to know, don't want to know, and would you please return to your seat and watch the movie.

But the plane leaves on time, works beautifully and gives you what you paid for. "Just leave the flying to us."

 

[3282872]

Here's my take. I love Apple products. The team of Ive and Jobs has produced products that are reliable, aesthetically pleasing and amazing blends of ergonomics and powerful machinery. However, when people stop asking questions and begin accepting things as they are, that is when progress may halt and complacency begins. The American consumer has experienced this in the mobile phone industry, and especially in the oil and gas arena. If we blithely accept what we are handed and treat certain companies as untouchable Gods, then we simply become sheep. As for the iPhone, I don't like being sold a product at full price with a locked contract and then be told how I can use said product. It's tantamount to buying a car and being told I can old drive it in certain states, and if I drive it in unauthorized states my engine will seize. If the phone was discounted/subsidized/whatever, sure, but not for the original asking price of $599 (and before you begin Apple's stance at the time of purchase was a "hands-off", "we'll look the other way" in regards to third party app's, etc).

This just boils down to another company wanting more money and control from the consumer. I wish Apple fanboy's would appreciate that instead of defending Apple at every turn, it gets tired, and in the end, you're just a number to Steve Jobs, he doesn't fall asleep dreaming of his iPhone owners like some people dream of Jobsy.

 

[nagromme]

Apple's position on teh iPhone unlocking is pretty rough, but understandable. Every cell phones gets unlocked soon after it's release, but Apple isn't every cell phone maker.

As for 3rd party applications, I agree that Apple should definitely test everything before it gets release, but not allowing 3rd party applications at all will bite em in the (rear) end. Imagine if we had great touch control games from Sega...

iPhone/iPod games that use multitouch and the tilt sensors will be GREAT! Not revisions of existing games, but whole new types of games were you touch and stretch and twist and spin and tilt things physically. (And these games will come--officially or otherwise! There are already demo games that use the tilt function.)

 

[sananda]

But the plane leaves on time, works beautifully and gives you what you paid for. "Just leave the flying to us."

but you cannot use any other airline for 5 years. even if it's cheaper. not even for one little flight.

 

[DeaconGraves]

But the plane leaves on time, works beautifully and gives you what you paid for. "Just leave the flying to us."

Unless the pilot for their Leopard flight gets shifted to the iPhone flight, delaying the former to October.

 

[nagromme]

However, when people stop asking questions and begin accepting things as they are, that is when progress may halt and complacency begins.

It seems to me that those who are 100% certain Apple is spending time working to disable native 3rd-party iPhone apps have stopped asking questions... long before answers have arrived

 

[elgruga]

There is a reasonable RIGHT to unlock your SIM

The iPhone has TWO distinct parts - one is a mini-computer, I guess thats the 'i', and the other is the phone, which, according to the general behaviour of wireless providers and various legal rulings, can be, and very often is, unlocked - usually during a contract.
This allows the user to put a different SIM onto the phone when travelling, so as to avoid the alarming cost of 'roaming'.

Although this unlocking isnt formally legislated, as yet, it is a shoe-in for a class-action suit because it has become a normal practise, one that any cell phone user can reasonably expect.

The reasonable expectations of consumers are typically used to prove that there is a de facto 'right' to the action that is in question.
There is no doubt that Apple will, at some point, be forced to offer SIM unlocking codes.

Backwards on our consumer expectations we dont go.

AT&T offer it after 90 days of a contract, as a matter of course. Call them and they will tell you that Apple havent given them the unlock codes. Naughty Apple!

All the wireless providers will unlock your phone, at your request, and with some financial penalty, or its free.

The 'i' part is Apple's to do what they want with - and here is their big problem (as they see it) - when the SIM is unlocked, the iphone doesnt behave in exactly the way Apple wants it to. (In fact, it is only missing Visual Voice Mail. Every single other thing can be done, including EDGE on ANY other GSM provider.)

The rights and wrongs are all mixed up - because the iPhone is two objects together, a breakthrough cross-over device.

At some point Apple will have to accept that the SIM unlock will occur.

I dont see that will affect the AT&T contract too much; AT&T have the iphone, most users are happy to leave the thing alone, but there are a SIGNIFICANT number of users, probably around 10 %, who want/need SIM unlocking for overseas travel.

So to all of you who think that 'hackers' deserve what they get, I humbly suggest that this is NOT about 3rd party apps and 'hackers' - its about the right of a consumer to put a different SIM in his/her iPhone, a right that allows the consumer to save LARGE amounts of cash when travelling, a right that is already available with EVERY other phone.

As a legal argument, it will be tough for Apple to prove that they, and they alone, must have locked phones, expecially as it is rather obvious that the Baseband firmware (cell radio) and the actual OSX are EASILY separated out.

Shades of Windows and IE and the EU, anyone?

As for third party apps - well IMHO, that is a battle that Apple and the 'hackers' can enjoy and continue to fight over, if thats what turns their respective little cranks.....

 

[MacYang]

Check this out :

http://andreas.louca.org/2007/09/30/iphone-unlock-frenzy/

 

[Football1maniac]

With everyone out there complaining about their new iBrick, why do you come here to complain about YOUR mistake. It's not Apple's fault, it's yours. Apple even told everyone days before it came out that this software update may damage your iPhone, but no, you decide to continue and download and install it anyway. Yes, Apple is being aggressive over this matter, but wouldn't you be too? Let's say you created this muffin. (I know lame) But this muffin was the most amazing muffin ever. You took lots of pride in this muffin, and the flavors of this muffin was amazing. But, every muffin needs flour. You agree to a deal with Flour CO. (what ever is out there now-a-days). But then, some other people come out and create things for this muffin that you don't want in it. Soon, you get frustrated and so does Flour CO. So you decide to clean up the mess by sending out a "Muffin Update." Soon, peoples muffins are becoming useless everywhere. They cry to you, but it's their fault. They broke the rules that they agreed on with you. Apple has performed the same procedures, and if they did do something illegal, (which they didn't) then many people would be knocking on their door.

Final point: Get over it. No matter what Apple gives you, you want more. Look at the $100 credit, look at this software update. Apple could just not give you an update to bring new features to the iPhone, but they want to. Because they want you to have the best product anywhere.

Sorry about the poor analogy, but hey a point is a point.

 

[ddubbo]

iCar

Try to imagine if a cars were done the way the iPhone is. The car has no steering wheel and gear and managed by brain impulses. You paid twice vs car with similar performance. You can't ignite the car if you're drunk or your license expired. You can fill it up only at the stations of a certain oil company, with the special fuel that costs twice than a regular one. When you try to put the same fuel from other company, the car doesn't ignite. The tires glued to the wheels. When you need to replace it, you should to get to the special garage and live your car for a week. The car will not turn to the rural road because bad surface could damage the car.
Do you want to afford one?

 

[DeaconGraves]

Here's my take. I love Apple products. The team of Ive and Jobs has produced products that are reliable, aesthetically pleasing and amazing blends of ergonomics and powerful machinery. However, when people stop asking questions and begin accepting things as they are, that is when progress may halt and complacency begins. The American consumer has experienced this in the mobile phone industry, and especially in the oil and gas arena. If we blithely accept what we are handed and treat certain companies as untouchable Gods, then we simply become sheep.

I agree 100%.

But where most people's logic seems to fail in this issue is when they further conclude that the only way to effect change is to do it themselves.

In a sense this is more counterproductive. Apple still sells phones which gives it the opportunity to publish its sales numbers, state "everything is ok, lets keep with the status quo" and keep moving on.

Meanwhile, if everyone who bought a phone–solely for the purpose of hacking it or adding the features they wanted–instead bought someone else's phone (that worked for their network or had the features they wanted), Apple suddenly has missed their sales goal and perhaps shifts its focus faster.

Might I propose that the people who hack the iPhone, seemingly because they have to have one, are the real sheep?

 

[arn]

It seems to me that those who are 100% certain Apple is spending time working to disable native 3rd-party iPhone apps have stopped asking questions... long before answers have arrived

I think what is clear is Apple has made the iPhone (and iTouch) intentionally more difficult to hack, by changing and adding further encryption to the software that resides on the devices.

In this respect, Apple is intentionally preventing 3rd party applications on the iPhone.

Now, you could argue that this is only a side effect of them not wanting more unlocking hacks... but the end result is the same. I don't think it's particularly paranoid/conspiracy-theorizing to come to the conclusion that Apple is intentinonally breaking 3rd party hacking of the iPhone by this action.

arn

 

[boss1]

About Apple and More Apps...

Obviously there are several factors decluding 3rd party apps that seem to be issues between the consumer and Apple's actions' inactions.

All those things aside, talking about more/3rd party apps:

There seems to be a lot of tension between consumer and company as of late. IMO 75% of the heat admist would simmer down if Apple does the following soon!:

Apple should roll out an SDK already, and start creating a way for developers to get their programs to iPhone users, even if it has to go through a strict Apple approval process. OR Apple should step up the pace here and start pumping out apps of their own already.

over the past 30 days we've seen dozens of apps developed by persons of little experience in the field and by more established SW developers. Everything from apps that function as real chat (AIM) to programs that run freakin Nintendo on your phone.

You mean to tell me that the people who created the phone and it's OS to begin with can't roll out a checklist app (to dos) for ex?



My point is... 1.1.1 wouldn't be so bad if they offered solutions for the kind of Apps they just effectively disabled. After seeing the speed at which non apple 3rd party developers were able to create software for the iPhone without support from Apple, it makes one question the argument that Apple is waiting for the OS to stabilize. I think that argument is BS.

 

[rjwill246]

Thoughts

1. Apple has no right to lock the phone. Really? A manufacturer can set its devices to any criterion it wants, so long as the product performs as advertised. In fact, the iPhone was always promised to be locked.

2. ATT has no right to not unlock the iPhone. Perhaps true, it seems, because of the 90 day unlock it has provided other customers using other phones. Might that not open ATT up to some legal leverage by those who want the phone unlocked? In this case, ATT is going against its own precedents and that makes for an interesting situation-- one where a lawsuit might actually be useful... even if only to force ATT's hand and make it take a stand and not sit in no-man's land, as the company appears to be doing right now.

3. 1 and 2 might put Apple and ATT at odds with each other as customers get angrier and angrier.

4. Given that Apple owns and controls the OS from which the phone operates and ATT and Apple have agreed to keep the phone locked, and the customer who buys the phone and uses iTMS to begin making the phone functional has agreed to all of the above, it is IMPOSSIBLE to argue that it is not fair or immoral, or whatever the wording, for Apple and ATT to apply the rules to which the purchaser agreed.

5. Presumably, one could buy the iPhone and never use the iTMS to activate it, if a 3rd party hack became available to allow such a by-pass but that should void the warranty and it probably violates Apple's usage agreement with that customer, though one could argue this for a very long time. The Brits and Euros would support the hack as their right, no doubt and some meddling court in Brussels would agree to pursue it.
Not going there.

6. To argue that Apple should have just released the iPhone like it did iPods is untenable as there would have been few, if any, carriers willing to take it on. What would the complainers have said then? I just bought a phone for $600 and NO ONE will activate it for me. Or the data charges would have been too high? Or, the Internet, Wi-Fi option would have been locked out and thus become an upgradeable option-- at a price!

7. The ATT/Apple relationship has proven to be the correct course and has made the iPhone desirable by other carriers. That too, will require some lock-out period in order for those carriers to get back some of their investment in this enterprise.

8. I am amazed at how some folk don't seem to understand that when companies break new ground-- as Apple seems to do, over and over, that they need time and means to recoup their investment. Much of the unlocking-- not the hacking-- is to deprive ATT in particular of the rewards it rightly deserves for having taken a huge risk. After all, the iPhone was being decried as a complete failure prior to its launch by pretty much everyone, except Apple and ATT. Even across the pond. Boy, has that tune changed! Now the same people want to take away the European carriers profits by having the phone unlocked on day one of its European appearance. Punish the adventurous.... an exciting way to ensure future improvements happen, right?

9. And could someone tell me why the unlockers are correct in what they are doing-- apart from the travelers who have a strong case to be made for some sort of means whereby they are not screwed when they roam? After all, the vast majority of the whiners actually don't need this device--- it's not a life or death issue and there are thousands of other phones out there for them to buy. Not buying the iPhone is surely the way to go, for all of these folks. Apple is going to sell millions of iPhones, without any purchases at all from the folk who are angry with Apple and ATT et al.
To all of you, I say, leave your anger at home-- DO NOT, under ANY circumstances consider buying this device. It will never make you happy, and life is too short for that.

10. AND Apple--- for crying out loud, release the bloody SDK and let this iPhone do its job. There are so many needed programs that would encourage even more sales. It IS a computer, SJ and your saying it isn't is disingenuous at the very least.

ATT--- stop screwing roamers. That goes for O2, Orange and T-mobile and all future Apple partners. You could easily let SIMS from areas that you DO NOT serve work in the iPhone and instead of looking like vultures and behaving like turkeys, you might look like eagles! Be noble and it will decrease the need for people to keep attacking the iPhone. In every way, you guys are inviting these hacks---

 

[ssajous]

Lonely when you are making it to the top

I still believe that users are overreacting to the closed status of the iPhone. You aren't buying an external hard drive! Plus, Apple is most likely legally protecting their relationship with AT&T by proving that the SIM card can't be replaced in a simple way.

In the long run, the iPhone will probably have many of the boundaries soften, maybe even with multiple carrier options. Heck, maybe with the release of Leopard, Apple may even have some tricks up their sleeve in order to begin to open up more ability for the installation of 3rd party apps and widgets...could it be that they just want to let Leopard get out there for a bit?

But does every developer and tech user have to call Apple out on each move? I mean, the iPhone has only been out for about 4 months.

The bottom line guys is that the big bucks is not in giving **** away. The Mac communitiy has always treate M$ of being the evil empire and the truth is that Jobs preaches one thing and does another, he says he is for openess, but has never done anything for it. One of the reason why I never owned any apple software before the iphone is because of that.

That being out of pure speculation since I am did not see the contract Apple has with AT&T, I am pretty sure that somewhere in there, AT&T told Apple that if they to get that fee that they get for every new subscriber, there has to be some assurances that people are not going to use the phone with other subscribers, since they want to use the product's potential success to get more ATT contracts, it just makes perfect sense. I don't see why people are surprised that Apple is trying to prevent them from doing something they are not allowed to do in the first place.

 

[arn]

With everyone out there complaining about their new iBrick, why do you come here to complain about YOUR mistake.

Most people aren't complaining about bricking their iPhone. Many of the complaints are about Apple closing off their system to 3rd party apps etc...

arn

 

[Cleverboy]

Check this out :
http://andreas.louca.org/2007/09/30/iphone-unlock-frenzy/

Mm, hm. Good article. I also recommend searching the Internet for IMEI code "004999010640000". It would seem that the iPhone doesn't exactly mark the first appearance of this number.
http://gsmhosting.com/vbb/archive/index.php/t-223129.html

Also, regarding unlocking, a lot of people might find this article very illuminating:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235602,00.html

Most people aren't complaining about bricking their iPhone. Many of the complaints are about Apple closing off their system to 3rd party apps etc...
arn

I've thrown in the towel. I doubt the average user even knows there's much of a difference between the two things. Moreover, 3rd party app hacking is the first step to unlocking, unfortunately. They're very intimately tied, and I'm at a loss to attempt to differentiate the two for people when public tech industry commentators like Leo Leporte freely switch between the two concepts when discussing the topic.

~ CB

 

[3282872]

They cry to you, but it's their fault. They broke the rules that they agreed on with you. Apple has performed the same procedures, and if they did do something illegal, (which they didn't) then many people would be knocking on their door.

What "rules"? No where, at the time of my purchase, did it state I could not use third party apps in the iPhone. In fact, when asked, Jobs said Apple would "look the other way". Then things changed. Fast. Att? Apple? Who knows, either way, the consumer isn't the only person to blame. Personal responsibility? Absolutely. When it is appropriate. Being told how to use something you have full ownership of seems more akin to a parent telling their child how to do their homework and chores, then taking away their allowance or toys for punishment. Sorry Apple, I'm not one for a company "chiding" me for using my fully paid for device as the "OS X" run mobile "revolutionary" product as it was intended. This idea that it is illegal, rubbish. Pure rubbish, and more fodder for the 5% of Apple fanatics to baaaaaaah their way into saying "I told you so" to other people.

 

[TC Schiller]

Apple's statement that they aren't actively locking down hackers is still very true. If they were, all iPhone users would be forced to update. The update is still of course optional.