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
Pretty much every cellphone I've owned over the past 8 years has done this. Smartphones are worse about it since they're so chatty.
Ugh, that is an old post, and through debating my opinion has changed, you should read my other posts more, they clarify my standing on this issue.
Well, since you brought it up, I did go back and re-read all of your posts. It was a slow night.
I understand your view that Apple has just become another corporate company just like all the others. Of course, they never were really any different. That was just marketing.
I like Apple, not for its corporate culture, but because the products are good. They are well designed, serve needs I have, and I get enjoyment from them. A lot.
But, its a consumer product. Like any other. And when you personally modify a good you purchased you can't complain when it no longer works.
It was clear well before the release of 1.1.1 what the consequences were. No one was forced to upgrade the phone.
This is the closest you've come to any type of factual complaint. Yet, I seriously doubt it is even true.
If a user can point to a support policy then they have a clear case to have Apple fix it. But right now I believe you are likely just making this up.
Why do I not believe you? Because if you had changed the SIM Card as you claim to have done under the advice of AT&T, why haven't you contacted Apple or AT&T? Why don't you have any information concerning what their reply was to your inquiry?
If you did have the information, it would actually be a lot more appropriate for this forum, and a great deal more informative and helpful.
Try looking at the Nokia N800.
Nice well integrated GUI. Linux* underneath. 3rd party apps allowed, including an "xterm-advanced" app that lets you access the Linux CLI. ssh, vnc, gpe calendar/todo/contacts, opera browser** (mozilla based one on the way), skype, google-talk build in, pidgin add-on for IM, and lots more. Soon to have a general SIP (voip) client as well.
(* I'm an old BSD, and NeXT fan (and thus now a Mac fan for the last 8 years), unix sysadmin by trade, etc. ... so usually I _hate_ linux, and have never found a linux UI I liked until now ... but I love my N800, despite a few quirks)
(** oh, and, that's browsing the "real internet", not like WAP browsers ... and the 770/N800 have been doing that since well before June ;-) )
Start researching it now. 1 or 2 new models will be out within the next year. There's a rumor of one with a slide-out keyboard, and there's officially going to be a WiMAX version (70 MB/s WAN via Sprint; 10 or 15 mile range to each base station, so it should be fairly usable as a mobile phone, via skype or SIP). Not sure if the WiMAX one is the leaked prototype with the slide out keyboard, or not.
You can also get the older version, the Nokia 770, for really cheap right now (under $200). It doesn't run all of the same software, but it should give you a general idea of the platform, if you don't want to drop $400 on the N800.
Personally, I don't mind that I spent $400 on the N800 this year, and then immediately started drooling over the WiMAX announcement. It'll just give me time to really get to know the platform before next one comes out.
seriously......and when I'm mixing a record I like the little rf chime in. It lets me know I have a phone call, otherwise I can't hear S#*()@ from my iphone. I only want the update for the speaker boost. anyone know of a 1.0.2 hack to do just this?
Veerrryyy interesting points in the article, but this one applies to this thread:
Bricking the iPhone: I understand the arguments. You knew you were buying a locked phone when you purchased it. You understood that Apple and AT&Ts Terms of Service forbid you hacking your phone. If you wanted a more flexible phone you shouldnt have purchased the iPhone in the first place.
An exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically states that you are not in violation of the law when you unlock a phone to use it with another provider. While Apple and AT&T may not like it, regardless of the EULA or TOS, Im within my rights to unlock my iPhone. If you want to make that difficult to do, fine.
Apples warning that the update could render the iPhone inoperable hints that Apple knew the update would brick the phone. After all, every Apple employee has an iPhone and I cant believe no one thought to test the update with a phone that had been unlocked. Apple doesnt do that kind of negligence.
Given that, under whose code of ethics is it allowable to knowingly release an update that will assuredly destroy someones property? If I install a third-party ink cartridge in my Epson printer against Epsons wishes, I do not expect an Epson representative to come over to my house and take a sledgehammer to my printer.
Worse yet, this likely could have been avoided. From all appearances the iPhone updater checks the state of the phones firmware before proceeding. With the 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 updates the phone would be updated if the firmware appeared to be in its original condition. If it wasnt (it was hacked to allow third-party applications, for example), the update wiped the firmware and installed a fresh copy.
Rather than destroying the phone (yes, even after warning that it might) why couldnt the 1.1.1 update have checked the firmware as other updates have done, seen that it was altered in one of a couple of known ways, and then simply thrown up a message that the phone could not be updated? Sure, some people would gripe that they couldnt have the iPhones latest features, but at least theyd still have their phone intact. If Apple wanted them to upgrade to a locked phone, do it the old-fashioned by offering compelling features that you can get only with the new iPhone software.
Im aware that Apple feels it must do right by AT&T but to offer up an update that it knows will destroy hacked iPhonesand provide no provision for undoing the damageis a despicable act.
This kind of stunt is bad for customers and, coupled with recent actions by the company that may paint it as less than innovative and customer-friendly, ultimately bad for Apple.
(Full article here )
and cute, I just read your comment lol
Bricking the iPhone: I understand the arguments. You knew you were buying a locked phone when you purchased it. You understood that Apple and AT&Ts Terms of Service forbid you hacking your phone. If you wanted a more flexible phone you shouldnt have purchased the iPhone in the first place.
An exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically states that you are not in violation of the law when you unlock a phone to use it with another provider. While Apple and AT&T may not like it, regardless of the EULA or TOS, Im within my rights to unlock my iPhone. If you want to make that difficult to do, fine.
Apples warning that the update could render the iPhone inoperable hints that Apple knew the update would brick the phone. After all, every Apple employee has an iPhone and I cant believe no one thought to test the update with a phone that had been unlocked. Apple doesnt do that kind of negligence.
Given that, under whose code of ethics is it allowable to knowingly release an update that will assuredly destroy someones property? If I install a third-party ink cartridge in my Epson printer against Epsons wishes, I do not expect an Epson representative to come over to my house and take a sledgehammer to my printer.
Worse yet, this likely could have been avoided. From all appearances the iPhone updater checks the state of the phones firmware before proceeding. With the 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 updates the phone would be updated if the firmware appeared to be in its original condition. If it wasnt (it was hacked to allow third-party applications, for example), the update wiped the firmware and installed a fresh copy.
Rather than destroying the phone (yes, even after warning that it might) why couldnt the 1.1.1 update have checked the firmware as other updates have done, seen that it was altered in one of a couple of known ways, and then simply thrown up a message that the phone could not be updated? Sure, some people would gripe that they couldnt have the iPhones latest features, but at least theyd still have their phone intact. If Apple wanted them to upgrade to a locked phone, do it the old-fashioned by offering compelling features that you can get only with the new iPhone software.
Im aware that Apple feels it must do right by AT&T but to offer up an update that it knows will destroy hacked iPhonesand provide no provision for undoing the damageis a despicable act.
This kind of stunt is bad for customers and, coupled with recent actions by the company that may paint it as less than innovative and customer-friendly, ultimately bad for Apple.
(Full article here )
Why do you think they call them cell phones? <groan> hehe
and cute, I just read your comment lol
MacWorld Article.
I totally agree with you that it was an interesting article. A couple of things though that stick with me.
Slight difference, Epson called to say that if you let them come over they would do this. You didn't need to let them in your home.
No one was forced to install the update.
I believe the answer to this is quite simple. This would have taken extra effort. Not just in development, but also in testing. Apple just didn't want to do that. Either due to the costs, or the time lines.
Is that ethical? What is the ethical dilemma?
I totally agree with you that it was an interesting article. A couple of things though that stick with me.
Slight difference, Epson called to say that if you let them come over they would do this. You didn't need to let them in your home.
No one was forced to install the update.
I believe the answer to this is quite simple. This would have taken extra effort. Not just in development, but also in testing. Apple just didn't want to do that. Either due to the costs, or the time lines.
Is that ethical? What is the ethical dilemma?
Hmmm, I agree to some extent. However, keep in mind that update 1.1.1 was available for a while before Apple finally released it in the U.S. This was discussed when Apple held the press conference for the iPhone in the U.K., as images showed firmware 1.1.1 on the device, working and ready for release. Then weeks later they finally released it in the U.S. (and after the iPod Touch already had the WiFi iTunes store being sold with the units), so many iPhone owners were wondering what was taking Apple so long in releasing the update it was already ready for use. Most speculated (and rightfully so) that ATT was on Apple's case about the recent unlocking of SIM cards, and that Apple wanted to address third party applications. If they knew the update could brick a phone for either of those two issues, Apple should have spent more time addressing fixes to the update to ensure that wouldn't happen. By law, there is nothing illegal with using the device in such manners (as the article correctly states). Whether the contract with Apple states so or not, there is no mandated state or federal law that is on Apple's side. Thus, Apple should have addressed this issue with 1.1.1, or in the least unbricked any iPhone's as a result of this update (and as some owners have stated, before Apple released official orders to all their stores, some Mac Geniuses were fixing bricked iPhones, so this can be done, Apple is just choosing NOT to).
Legally, Apple is in the wrong (which people on Macrumors apparently need to understand, there is NO law stating that Apple has the right to do this in the first place, which makes any "agreement" null and void). If their update is causing the failure, and it CAN be fixed, forcing a customer to purchase another device seems more of a "punishment" to the owner. Apple's stance that it isn't their "fault" is ludicrous, I don't care what people use for analogies. If the iPhone was fully working hacked, and the update caused the failure, their stance that the hacking is the problem is wrong, the iPhone was WORKING before the update. Apple has also fixed bricked iPhones in the store, until they released software for Mac Geniuses to use on malfunctioning iPhones to determine if it was hacked. That demonstrates a malicious intent on Apple's part. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have released software to determine if the malfunction was due to hacking or not, and if it was refusing to service the device is a "witch hunt", as their actions demonstrate extra effort in determining something that if they don't really care about they wouldn't actively seek out. They would just fix the device as they did for that brief moment before they addressed the issue.
Further, Apple has tethered features such as the WiFi iTunes store and TV Out on the iPhone that without the update owners will not have access to, as well as general fixes to stability, so the issue of the update being "optional" seems to carry less weight. Regardless of 1.1.1 being an optional update, it shouldn't render a product useless, even if the individual has opened the device up for third party applications. I'm certain Apple's programming department can handle releasing an update that wouldn't interfere with the core of the operating device due to a third party installation app. After all, this is a company that writes a major OS that handles third party applications and thousands of other software issues, I'm certain an update for a device with a "light" version of their OS software could deal with it. As the author stated, updates before 1.1.1 that detected a "hacked" iPhone simply required the user to restore the device, then apply the update with no issues. However, now this update causes "bricking" if other software is detected? Suspect.
I fear that Apple may have some legal woes.
Anyone with a sense of software development experience knows that checking for the firmware and simply sending a warning message to abort firmware update is a pretty easy thing to do.
If they intentionally bricked phones, then that's just plain despicable.
If they accidentally bricked phones via the firmware, then I have to ask where their quality control and testing went to?
Either way, it's a bad sign for Apple to continue to
If they intentionally bricked phones, then that's just plain despicable.
If they accidentally bricked phones via the firmware, then I have to ask where their quality control and testing went to?
Either way, it's a bad sign for Apple to continue to
I agree. Before update 1.1.1, if iTunes detected a problem updating the phone it would go into a perpetual "Connect to iTunes store" state with a yellow triangle on the screen. No matter what you do at that point, you have to install the current update or your phone won't work. So, once the phone is plugged in, and the owner hits "Update" button, it's too late, you're in it whether the update loads or not. It's a crap shoot. I had my iPhone hacked only so I could customize my home screen and change the graphics, nothing else. No ringtones or third party apps. All the updates before 1.1.1 just said I had to restore it and after wards I simply re-arranged everything again. However, 1.1.1. doesn't allow this, but instead gives users a 1604 error message that their phone can not be restored. It took me five attempts before it finally acquiesced, otherwise I'd be out a phone (the 1604 error message is the same message the Mac Geniuses receive in the store, and they make a note of this on the owners account). THAT is malicious.
I'd like to think the bricking was unintentional and is down to the possible reduction in numbers in the iphone dev team to finish Leopard (they originally took devs from the leopard team to get the iphone out of the door).
Pure conjecture of course, Apple may have actually decided to brick some small number of the iphones. Who knows?
You make some interesting points and provide some new things I didn't know. Like the potential delay between the UK release and the US release.
Taking your side, I think that it is not a problem that Apple did nothing in the interim. Rather, what did they actually do? It seems plausible, abliet conjucture, that Apple did make changes in that time period.
What were those changes? Did the UK 1.1.1 release actually leave the hacked iPhones alone? And instead they modified 1.1.1 to brick those?
Has anyone proved that the UK 1.1.1 and the US 1.1.1 are the same builds?
If they are not the same builds, and Apple did change the software to intentionally brick phones. Then there are some legal grounds.
But we are still making things up at this point. Someone needs to do the real leg work and see if that is indeed true. Otherwise its just sour grapes.
P.S. Your story about the update is interesting. I had hacked mine for the ring tones, and rolled the dice on the update. If had a bricked my phone I would have been upset..but not at Apple....
You make some interesting points and provide some new things I didn't know. Like the potential delay between the UK release and the US release.
Taking your side, I think that it is not a problem that Apple did nothing in the interim. Rather, what did they actually do? It seems plausible, abliet conjucture, that Apple did make changes in that time period.
What were those changes? Did the UK 1.1.1 release actually leave the hacked iPhones alone? And instead they modified 1.1.1 to brick those?
Has anyone proved that the UK 1.1.1 and the US 1.1.1 are the same builds?
If they are not the same builds, and Apple did change the software to intentionally brick phones. Then there are some legal grounds.
But we are still making things up at this point. Someone needs to do the real leg work and see if that is indeed true. Otherwise its just sour grapes.
P.S. Your story about the update is interesting. I had hacked mine for the ring tones, and rolled the dice on the update. If had a bricked my phone I would have been upset..but not at Apple....
The interesting thing is that in the U.K. and E.U. it is actually illegal to lock phones to one specific carrier, so I wonder how Apple is going to address that issue come the iPhone's release in November. If Apple will not be locking down iPhone's per law, then perhaps the U.K. 1.1.1 firmware didn't need "addressing" for unlocked and hacked ATT phones in the U.S. Either way, it seems interesting that a company would release an update knowing it may or may not cause operational issues with the device, even if the issues were the initial result of opening up the devices software. Further, how does a company justify such acts? "We told you so" doesn't seem to cut it, especially as the laws are on the consumers' side. How this plays out will be interesting, but the only way it will ever play out is if people know their rights in a court of law, and take a stand against a company for "chastising" its customers. There seems to be a lot of strong arming going on.
What bothers me is that Apple CAN release an update to unbrick those devices. They did it in the stores until headquarters told them not to, so why not? Why are the not simply fixing it? Who cares whose fault it is, if it is simple to fix why don't they? Telling people to buy another iPhone is extremely f**ked up. It's a software issue, not hardware, so the phone can be reset. Again, why isn't Apple doing it? There is no law on their side giving them the right. None.
I haven't done an exhaustive search, but if Apple can, via an exisiting software update, unbrick iPhones then I agree they should do that.
They should do that, not for legal reasons. But they should do that because AT&T can't have any grounds to legally fight Apple, and Apple doesn't loose any significant revenue. Whereas they actually gain in consumer satisfaction.
What's really going on behind the scenes? Who knows. On the one hand Steve Jobs is a maniac when it comes to "his" hardware. And I'm sure he considers every iPhone his. On the other. He wants rabid fans.
So, we'll see.
Really? I read that on here a few times. In the E.U. and U.K., people who live in those countries have said it is. In fact, googling the information I found that:
link
Further
source
Source
So, I was incorrect, it is not ILLEGAL to sell a locked phone in the U.K., but the carrier must provide an unlock code if the owner requests. Otherwise, I was spot on.