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
Um, it already IS the fastest booming 'smart PDA phone out there'.
The business plan is working just fine, thank you.
I'll put the business judgement of Steve up against the interests of a handful of open source (read 'unemployed') programmers any day.
Do you have any idea how much time and manpower it would take for Apple to check and sign off on every app written for the platform? And what happens if they miss a problem in an app and the OKed app causes problems with a system? This is most definitely NOT a good idea.
Quality over quantity any day. Nissan has a bigger market share than Porsche. And while Nissan makes a good car (better than MS can make software) I think I'll stick with the Porsche.
As has been stated in other places, Apple's share is larger than BMW or Mercedes in their markets. Works for me. Apple stock has been a much better investment as well, so I guess it works on all levels. Quality first!
It is you're right....it's also Apple's right to deny you software updates as well....
There would be no Apple, but there would be an alternative.
Just as if there was no microsoft, there would be a company that would have taken its place at the time.
Boy, wait until people discover you can't add expansion cards or an internal floppy into an iMac... I smell "Edsel"... *sighs*
Now listen, lets dispel a few notions here. Apple didn't cause criminal damage...or any damage at all to anyone's iPhone, unless you were forced, against your will and without any written warning, to upgrade to 1.1.1.
Now to the point of consumer rights... there are a few issues dealing with morality, responsibility, and consumerism, that we have to touch on, here.
If you believe that Apple flagrantly defied the law in the form of selling you a device that violated laws concerning SIMs and unlocking, it is incumbent upon you to contact a lawyer and initiate a lawsuit. I don't pretend to understand laws surrounding locked phones, so I won't hazard a guess about the outcome of such a suit, but I do know that in a market economy, no one will look out for your rights, if you don't.
There are three possible outcomes here, as I see it:
!) A court finds that Apple is in violation of a certain law and must remunerate all iPhone/AT&T customers in some manner.
2) A court makes precendent and reverses an unjust situation, likewise forcing Apple to compensate iPhone/AT&T customers in some way.
3) A court finds against you.
In that final case, the person filing the lawsuit, at best, is exposed as a customer who shirked their own responsibility to know what they were buying.
Now lets also talk about ownership...
I paid $600 for my iPhone. I knew what the product was, when I bought it. I knew it's advantages, I knew it's shortcomings, and I knew it's limitations. If I was willing to fork over that much money without doing my due diligence; well, as the expression goes, "A fool and his money are soon parted".
Let's talk about what I bought, shall we? I purchased an iPhone, a neat headphone/mic combo, a dock, and a cable. I did not purchase the iPhone OS. That would require probably somewhere in the neighborhood of several billion dollars, seeing where Apple's market cap is $133 billion dollars, as I write this. I did purchase a license to use the software.
... and therein lay the terms and conditions that we all agreed to. I didn't see the part where Apple declared that they were responsible for alterations that we made to the software. Seeing as where there is no SDK or developer tools of any nature... seeing as where Apple has stated publicly that they (at current) are not opening the platform to third party developers outside of the whole Safari deal, I am not capable of such a leap of logic that I hold Apple accountable for not breaking software they never declared they would support.
Now I haven't heard of anyone's iPhone being bricked because of third party software other than SIM unlocking tools. Said third party software simply doesn't work. I can't imagine how hard it might be to prove in a court of law that Apple intentionally disabled all third party software. Apple is, as anyone can plainly understand, not responsible for software that they didn't write. Therefore, I don't see where there's a debate to be found, here.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that Apple made a device available for sale. They were plainly upfront about what it did, what it didn't do, and how it worked. I made an evaluation of the benefits, limitations, and terms of useage. I bought the phone at the price point that it was sold at.
I don't believe that Apple is in violation of any laws that limit my rights as a consumer. If you do believe it, you have two choices... you can vent in a web forum or you can stand up for what you believe are your rights and challenge Apple in a court of law.
Any takers?
Agree - but it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked - an important distinction.
It Amazes me how Myopic the motives of Apple by their fans
Apple is contractually bound to the terms by AT&T concerning locking down the phones.
The more they adhere to this agreement an agitate the consumer the more motivation the Consumers Class Action suits ensue and how does this work for Apple?
Apple will then have to comply with the Courts to open up their contractual evidence that AT&T HAS THEM BOUND TO THIS. Then this will put the Telco in the hotseat.
Apple has everything to gain. Consumers have everything to gain.
The only way Apple is going to force Consumers to have the option to use the phone, by any Telco and thus allow Apple to sell more product is to have the US Congress pass a Telecommunications Reform Act that mandates Choice for Consumers by allowing Phones to be unlocked.
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint/Nextel & T-Mobile want this to go away.
The Telcos lobby to get the rights to dictate control of choice.
Keep breaking your phones. When enough swell arises the legal action will ensue and Apple will be in the enviable position of being at no fault.
Watch Telcos lobby the crap out of Congress to make this go away.
Apple is the first company to make a product so damn desired and wanted, with being able to be hacked and enhanced that AT&T will have to decide whether it wants to amend it's relationship or face court battles and public exposure to their inner business processes.
Apple is contractually bound to the terms by AT&T concerning locking down the phones.
The more they adhere to this agreement an agitate the consumer the more motivation the Consumers Class Action suits ensue and how does this work for Apple?
Apple will then have to comply with the Courts to open up their contractual evidence that AT&T HAS THEM BOUND TO THIS. Then this will put the Telco in the hotseat.
Apple has everything to gain. Consumers have everything to gain.
The only way Apple is going to force Consumers to have the option to use the phone, by any Telco and thus allow Apple to sell more product is to have the US Congress pass a Telecommunications Reform Act that mandates Choice for Consumers by allowing Phones to be unlocked.
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint/Nextel & T-Mobile want this to go away.
The Telcos lobby to get the rights to dictate control of choice.
Keep breaking your phones. When enough swell arises the legal action will ensue and Apple will be in the enviable position of being at no fault.
Watch Telcos lobby the crap out of Congress to make this go away.
Apple is the first company to make a product so damn desired and wanted, with being able to be hacked and enhanced that AT&T will have to decide whether it wants to amend it's relationship or face court battles and public exposure to their inner business processes.
Listen... I have been a developer. I know how much it must hurt to be able to see the potential for this little gem and not have it all there, right now. I do get it.
But I'm now an investor, user, and (I think) someone who doesn't want all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth to derail the damned thing before Apple gets it solidly on-track. Its 3 months old today for chrissakes!!!
C'mon... we've all seen this show before. Feature initially missing, feature gets added. The overwhelming majority of actual users (as opposed to the tech-obsessed-in-a-good-way voices on forums such as this) have orders of magnitude more functionality on the iPhone AS IT IS than they do on the open-bloatware crapPhones that make use of those features impossible.
Legally unlocked?? I'm sure you forfeited that right in that wonderful Terms of Service no one reads.....
I am still hoping Steve will do the right thing here and announce a sdk. The iphone is a bit misleading since it is a product-subscription hybrid. You do not get a price break on the device, does not work fully without subscription, and has very little real world warranty. With apple receiving future revenues from each iPhone they should be actively developing the platform, and that includes a sdk, major format support (flash) and third party battery support, other wise they are simply greedy and close minded. I am hoping... we will see in the coming days whether faith in apple was justified, I hope it is.
Cheers, mate.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Substitute "phones" for "DRM music", and set this in France, and you have an all too familiar scenario. The company with the superior product is the sole beneficiary of "OPEN" environments. Personally, I'm still hoping the government will go ahead and reserve that section of the wireless spectrum Google has been lobbying for.Link
It's a big game being played.
LOL. All I can do to not post that as my signature or something. 90 days. Brand new mobile platform. Uber powerful. Security implications still in flux. Be patient, folks!
~ CB
There is nothing illegal about locking a phone during the service agreement term, in this case, 2 years. In 2 years, revisit this issue. Until then it's a moot point.
Interesting post...you may be right, although I would think Apple would prefer it take a while, so that it doesn't disrupt their initial revenue cut (if you unlock and switch providers, Apple still sells the phone, but loses a cut of the monthly revenue pie).
Apple may be nudging the issue by bricking the phones, in order to force the issue legally and end up allowing them a way out of their exclusive relationship. Timing-wise, a 3G iPhone might be out by then, their initial development costs could be recouped, and they might make more from increased hardware sales than the monthly AT&T revenue would provide...they could be itching to have it unlocked by then...
AFAIK, Apple is not legally bound to ensure that software updates are compatible with an OS that has been modified without Apple's advice, assistance or consent. Various laws require that a wireless provider unlock a cell phone on request by a consumer, but they do not make a provider responsible for damage caused by a third party. It was actually the mods that bricked the affected iPhones. Prior to the update, the modded iPhones were simply ticking time bombs.
Now if Apple unlocked the phones and then subsequently bricked them, then it would be liable.
Closing up holes (that the hackers pointed at and published freely) is not breaking phones. It is REQUIRED for security of the authorized user.
Your only action is against the unauthorized app developer, which I'm sure had an ironclad agreement during the download telling you the risks you were taking and their lack of responsibility. So the only responsible party left after that is in the mirror.
See, that's where we disagree. I don't agree at all that an sdk is a good idea. Do you have any idea of the size of a team it takes to build and maintain an sdk? And Apple should do that why? So that it can turn into MS Vista, which even today has to program around its Registry and SDK contracts that must now be obeyed in perpetuity in order to not break legacy apps?
Nah, for right now, I'm perfectly happy letting Steve run the show, make a really cool and useful product, and make me lots of $$ in AAPL.
YMMV
You do have a right to take your iPhone and use it as a hammer if you want. But don't involve Apple in your decision.
Besides, this isn't your phone, it's Steve's phone and your lucky to get one to use. LOL
"Bob killed Susan." and "Bob cannot legally kill Susan." clearly don't mean the same thing
I said "it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked", not that they were doing it - two very different things. What I said was obviously not slanderous (false/injurious), so why don't we all chill out.
Having said that, unlocking a phone to use on another carrier is demonstrably legal in the US as per the DMCA exemptions. Refusing to service it, warranty it, or provide updates for it may very well be within Apple's rights.
Legally though, I would think intentionally rendering it non-functional for no other reason than the fact that it was legally unlocked...that's the murky bit where Apple should be careful (oh, and that was also neither false nor injurious).
"Bob killed Susan." and "Bob cannot legally kill Susan." clearly don't mean the same thing
I said "it is not Apple's right to intentionally damage a phone that has been legally unlocked", not that they were doing it - two very different things. What I said was obviously not slanderous (false/injurious), so why don't we all chill out.
Having said that, unlocking a phone to use on another carrier is demonstrably legal in the US as per the DMCA exemptions. Refusing to service it, warranty it, or provide updates for it may very well be within Apple's rights.
Legally though, I would think intentionally rendering it non-functional for no other reason than the fact that it was legally unlocked...that's the murky bit where Apple should be careful (oh, and that was also neither false nor injurious).
Peace.
(Although the undercurrent of this entire thread is that Apple DID do this intentionally.)
But the reason I'm spending this lovely Autumn day at my keyboard rather than in the Fall air is this...
I tuned into Leo Laporte's show on KGO in SF today. Leo has been doing the tech guru of the airways schtick for decades now and he holds sway with a lot of consumers.
So what do I hear today but a full-segment frothing-at-the-mouth tirade about Apple INTENTIONALLY bricking what (if you didn't know the back-story) sounded like EVERYONE's iPhone!
So I'm just pissed that the kind of vitriol being spewed by not just the normal trolls, but by people who need to get a grip (one forum member refers to this as somehow threatening his very life!).
Agree - although that's the fuzzy part for me though. My interpretation would be that Apple can legally lock it, fix software loopholes and re-lock it as often as they want...and the consumer can then legally unlock it as often as they want, and nobody is stepping over the line.
But to intentionally brick it solely because it was legally unlocked (as opposed to just fixing the hole and re-locking it), is I think where the difference lies. If someone felt like making a legal case out of it, they would need to prove that the bricking was intentional, and Apple could counter-argue that it was simply an unintended side effect of their perfectly harmless update.
That's where I *think* the potential problem lies.
wow I thought I was gonna read flaming apple iphone people but actually skimming through this. I saw a major decrease, unless my ignore list is finally kicking in. Interesting topics about it. I wonder if this situation can be compared to sampling, to what degree of borrowing and tweaking is ok until it taking away someone else's property.