iPhone firmware update 1.1.1 released!

[voicegy]

Installed this morning, my gripes and other comments:

As noted elsewhere, Ambrosia's amazingly simple iToner is kaput with this update. Note from the website: "N.B.: iToner does not currently work with iPhone OS 1.1.1. We are working hard on a fix." Okey dokey, I trust them.

I didn't modify my iPhone in any other way, so I'm off the hook for other hacks.

I downloaded (purchased) a song from the iTunes store via the new feature. Works fine. Synced with my iTunes on home computer and tossed the song in there as well. I didn't have to change any settings or lift a finger. Very, very nice. (Of course, now there are 3 blank spaces on the main screen making it look "off balance," so what's coming down the pike to fill the gaps?)

There seems to be a split (here and the discussion boards over at Apple) about volume. I've always been disappointed in speaker phone and regular (earphone) volume. I know cell phones that can blast in speaker phone mode and I always have to have mine full volume to be barely useful. I WANT and need louder volume in these two areas - if songs sound nice and loud (which they do) on my iPhone why can't voicemails, speakerphone and earphone volumes? Some folks say this update helped - others, like myself, can tell no difference. I wonder if a Genius bar trip would confirm a need for a new phone, given all the disparity of user experiences?

All other stuff is "meh" to me.

 

[PDE]

Get real! Corporate legal planning is about certainty. In these types of situations corporations, knowing that every competitor is out to create trouble for a successful venture, doesn't spend time trying to figure out how to walk the fine line of legal technicalities. They spend the time figuring out how to make sure everything they do is on such rock solid ground so that if some whiney idiots do challenge them, those clowns get tossed out on their collective asses before the ink is dry.

Ha ha ha. That's really funny. I wish you luck and success navigating the future that you are heading toward.

 

[Nemesis90]

Formerly spoof-activated iPhone 1.1.1 success

Thought I'd pass along information on my situation, which I found hard to find online:

I bought an iPhone and fake-activated (or spoof activated) it for a week or so using iActivator (now INdependence) while I waited for my subsidized backup phone from AT&T to arrive (a SE W300). iPod, wifi, etc. all worked except the phone part and YouTube.

When I was ready to sign up with AT&T I deactivated the phone and did a restore and all was peachy. I never installed any of the 3rd-party apps or anything.

Finally gave in to the urge this morning and went up to 1.1.1 and it went almost perfectly. The only thing I lost was the order of my bottom iPod buttons. Love the new double-click home button behavior.

So, to those of you that FAKE activated (not using anything like AnySim or mucking about with other carriers) it seems to be safe to update.

 

[outlyer]

It makes no sense why someone will buy it knowing the restrictions and then make a case about it.

Some people see wasted potential as something to work around. Hell, that was the reason that Apple entered the iPod market and the cell phone market. It's the reason we have Boot Camp on Intel Mac machines.

It's the difference between asking "why" and asking "why not."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No Battery Remaining for BT Headset...

So what bluetooth headsets support showing the battery life left? I have a jabra and it is not 'telling' the iPhone its remaining battery...

TIA...

 

[aznguy2772]

So what bluetooth headsets support showing the battery life left? I have a jabra and it is not 'telling' the iPhone its remaining battery...

TIA...

Sadly, only their crappy Apple Bluetooth headset (that small black one) will give the battery indicator on the phone. I too have something different (a great Jawbone)

 

[matticus008]

Yes, I also would love to hear a definite answer and to the legality of the unlocking since it was not via a utility or saction of the phone manufactorer and the restrictions that Apple has placed on the people.

It's already been given in the major threads on this topic many times over, and discussed in depth in at least one thread in which I've participated.

It's legal for the end user to unlock the phone. That's it. Everything else is subject to the terms of the software license and applicable law. Apple is free to do whatever they want with their software updates. They are not free to disable handsets that are otherwise functional by means of "remote shutdowns". There are absolutely no warranty issues nor any property rights in the consumers to assert against this action. Use of the Apple software is subject to conditions at law and at license agreement.

If you want your iPhone to stay as it is, decline software updates or request that they (being Apple and/or AT&T) implement a code-based unlocking mechanism that would allow unlocking without tampering with firmware. They have no obligation to provide one, but given sufficient thoughtful and courteous input, Apple has often responded to requests.

Note that this mechanism would still only be available to AT&T customers, so you'd have to get AT&T to provide the code--or use one of the many unlocking services for ordinary phones.

It remains to be established whether all this is legal or not, and I'm looking forward to it being tested in courts as I'm sure it will be eventually.

What is the "it" you feel hasn't been tested? I can assure you that SIM unlocking is entirely legal for legal owners of handsets for the purpose of lawful connection to cellular service to which they are subscribed. It is also entirely legal for Apple to release whatever it wants in the way of software updates, and has every right (and indeed an obligation) to close the security holes present in their code, even if they are used for "good" things by the iPhone hackers. The hackers will have to find another way, but should tread lightly as to misappropriation of legally protected property.

 

[jblock]

Hmm, this is all I've ever done with my iPhone is "fake-activated" it using INdependence, although it gives you the YouTube function. No other jailbreak or hacking or apps.

So what process did you use to load 1.1.1? Was the iphone already in the factory restored state or was it fake-activated and then you did the update?

Thanks.

Thought I'd pass along information on my situation, which I found hard to find online:

I bought an iPhone and fake-activated (or spoof activated) it for a week or so using iActivator (now INdependence) while I waited for my subsidized backup phone from AT&T to arrive (a SE W300). iPod, wifi, etc. all worked except the phone part and YouTube.

When I was ready to sign up with AT&T I deactivated the phone and did a restore and all was peachy. I never installed any of the 3rd-party apps or anything.

Finally gave in to the urge this morning and went up to 1.1.1 and it went almost perfectly. The only thing I lost was the order of my bottom iPod buttons. Love the new double-click home button behavior.

So, to those of you that FAKE activated (not using anything like AnySim or mucking about with other carriers) it seems to be safe to update.

 

[Kenya]

I set my home button to Favorites instead of iPod functions, but if you turn on, then double click home button without 'sliding to unlock' you get the ipod functions which is a nice way to listen to music without unlocking.

- James

Oooh, thank you for pointing this out. This is a great feature for when I am using my iPhone to listen to music in my car.

 

[Nemesis90]

Hmm, this is all I've ever done with my iPhone is "fake-activated" it using INdependence, although it gives you the YouTube function. No other jailbreak or hacking or apps.

So what process did you use to load 1.1.1? Was the iphone already in the factory restored state or was it fake-activated and then you did the update?

Thanks.

It was already in the factory restored state. In fact I had to restore it about three times before I could activate with AT&T some weeks ago.

 

[EagerDragon]

It's already been given in the major threads on this topic many times over, and discussed in depth in at least one thread in which I've participated.

It's legal for the end user to unlock the phone. That's it. Everything else is subject to the terms of the software license and applicable law. Apple is free to do whatever they want with their software updates. They are not free to disable handsets that are otherwise functional by means of "remote shutdowns". There are absolutely no warranty issues nor any property rights in the consumers to assert against this action. Use of the Apple software is subject to conditions at law and at license agreement.

If you want your iPhone to stay as it is, decline software updates or request that they (being Apple and/or AT&T) implement a code-based unlocking mechanism that would allow unlocking without tampering with firmware. They have no obligation to provide one, but given sufficient thoughtful and courteous input, Apple has often responded to requests.

Note that this mechanism would still only be available to AT&T customers, so you'd have to get AT&T to provide the code--or use one of the many unlocking services for ordinary phones.

What is the "it" you feel hasn't been tested? I can assure you that SIM unlocking is entirely legal for legal owners of handsets for the purpose of lawful connection to cellular service to which they are subscribed. It is also entirely legal for Apple to release whatever it wants in the way of software updates, and has every right (and indeed an obligation) to close the security holes present in their code, even if they are used for "good" things by the iPhone hackers. The hackers will have to find another way, but should tread lightly as to misappropriation of legally protected property.

Some questions:
1) Are you are real lawyer?
2) Have each of the above points / question raised seen their day in court?
3) or Are you saying that is logical based on your interpretation of the laws?
4) Is it not true that some legal decisions get reversed from time to time, so taking one opnion (legal or not) does not mean that it is the right opinion?


No disrespect, just want to put it in context.

 

[Avatar74]

Regarding all the pissing and moaning... Here's my suggestion...

SSSSHHHHH!!!

Here's the thing... Apple HAS to cover their butts from a legal standpoint with verbage and so on... No cooperation with phone carriers = no iPhone.

There are "reports" that Apple Geniuses have, shall we say, unbricked phones without questioning the cause of the bricking... if... you... get... my... drift.

A little patience, a little wisdom, and you can have the best of both worlds.

Just keep it on the down low.

 

[EagerDragon]

It's legal for the end user to unlock the phone. That's it. Everything else is subject to the terms of the software license and applicable law. Apple is free to do whatever they want with their software updates. They are not free to disable handsets that are otherwise functional by means of "remote shutdowns". There are absolutely no warranty issues nor any property rights in the consumers to assert against this action. Use of the Apple software is subject to conditions at law and at license agreement.

Forgot to ask you something,

While I am not in the camp that I will describe .... some are and I wouuld like to hear your piece on this:
1) It is legal for an individual to unlock the phone for its own use as you stated
2) It does open the possibility that some people would then argue that the law (DRM exception) was made so that people did not have to spend money purchasing another phone just because they wanted to change their sservice provider.
3) It does open the possibility that those people would then argue that Apple is restricting their entitlement to use a purchased phone in any available service provider and that as such, Apple restrictions were un-natural and contrary to the law. That restricting the customer ability to lawfully use the phone with another carrier (regardless of the license) was undue and unjust and contrary not only to the spirit of the law, but also contrary to consumer choice.

Then by putting the 3 together, take Apple to court?

I am not a lawyer, but I can see how people can come to conclusions like that and try to get their day in court (with a jury to raise their chances of success).

What do you think?

 

[Avatar74]

Forgot to ask you something,

While I am not in the camp that I will describe .... some are and I wouuld like to hear your piece on this:
1) It is legal for an individual to unlock the phone for its own use as you stated
2) It does open the possibility that some people would then argue that the law (DRM exception) was made so that people did not have to spend money purchasing another phone just because they wanted to change their sservice provider.
3) It does open the possibility that those people would then argue that Apple is restricting their entitlement to use a purchased phone in any available service provider and that as such, Apple restrictions were un-natural and contrary to the law. That restricting the customer ability to lawfully use the phone with another carrier (regardless of the license) was undue and unjust and contrary not only to the spirit of the law, but also contrary to consumer choice.

Then by putting the 3 together, take Apple to court?

I am not a lawyer, but I can see how people can come to conclusions like that and try to get their day in court (with a jury to raise their chances of success).

What do you think?

The Plaintiff in such a suit has the burden of proving that the software proactively disables and specifically is designed with the intent of disabling lawful unlocking. If the evidence presented demonstrates that bricking is only an incidental consequence of an incompatibility between Apple's firmware/software update and user-installed third-party software, the Plaintiff will fail to satisfy the burden of proof.

Manufacturers are not required by the Uniform Commercial Code to uphold warranty of merchantability, fitness of use, or implied or express warranties of their products when modified by third-party add-ons.

The only reason that Apple is advising people of this incompatibility is to avoid giving rise to much worse PR and unnecessary litigation that wastes time and money even if the Plaintiffs against Apple fail to satisfy the burden of proof.

 

[TLewis]

What do you think?

I think you need to go and read all of the threads that talked about ideas like yours. You're not exactly the first person to bring this up, you know.

matticus008 was just trying to summarize the threads. If you don't like what he wrote, don't complain about his "qualifications"; go to the other threads and complain (which could be on other websites).

 

[jblock]

It was already in the factory restored state. In fact I had to restore it about three times before I could activate with AT&T some weeks ago.

OK, I get it. So you had activated with AT&T before the update. What I'm looking to do is update when all I've done is the fake-activate it using INdependence as an ipod/PDA but I'll have to wait for the OK from the INdependence folks.

 

[Veritas&Equitas]

Some questions:
1) Are you are real lawyer?

He is.

I've talked with him outside of MR, and he most definitely attended one of the top law schools in the country.

Also, there are always 2 sides to each case. Sure, like you wrote, there could be a difference of opinion, and someone arguing the opposite side.

However, I'm almost done with law school myself, and in reading most points matticus008 makes in this thread and others, his interpretation of the law is darn near 100% correct the vast majority of the time.

 

[Stella]

I didn't buy the phone ( of course ).

However, Apple's move could lead to a bad precedence for consumer rights... what if other cell phone manufacturers followed Apple's example?

Like ATM fees, it just screws over the consumer.

What happens at the end of the two year ( AT&T ) , eighteen month contract ( O2 - UK ) - will Apple allow iPhone owners to unlock - or will Apple insist they take up another contract in order to continue to use the iPhone?

Also, ring tones: Why should users have to pay again ( assuming they are using ring tones purchased for a previous phone / made the tone themselves ) to use their existing tones on the iPhone. It makes no sense.

So if think that way, exactly why you buy the iPhone if you knew that it required you to activate it with AT&T and to carry a 2 year contract?

There is no law that says that, you have the right to unlock it if you so desire, the law does not force you to unlock it. There is no law that says that after the hack to unlock it, it has to work and that Apple is obligated to support you.

People have the right not to purchase the iPhone if they don't agree with the policy, they can also buy it and never use it or activate it, just another nicknak on the mantel.

It makes no sense why someone will buy it knowing the restrictions and then make a case about it.

 

[Palestrina]

Since the customer pays *FULL* price for the iPhone, the customer has the right to choose for themselves what carrier they want to use the iPhone with.

I disagree. By your logic, if the customer pays half price, then they don't have the right? The customer should realize that by purchasing an iPhone, they've already made their choice for their carrier. I think you have your definition of "right" a tad skewed. I think the customer has the right to complain that it's not open for other carriers, and they also have the right to vote with their wallets and not purchase an iPhone until Apple allows for 3rd party apps and other carriers. Our sense of entitlement has reached an all time high and is still climbing.

 

[Stella]

I disagree. By your logic, if the customer pays half price, then they don't have the right? The customer should realize that by purchasing an iPhone, they've already made their choice for their carrier. I think you have your definition of "right" a tad skewed. I think the customer has the right to complain that it's not open for other carriers, and they also have the right to vote with their wallets and not purchase an iPhone until Apple allows for 3rd party apps and other carriers. Our sense of entitlement has reached an all time high and is still climbing.

if the customer pays half price up front, then its a subsisized phone.. and that makes a difference.

I'm glad there's a load of Mac users who like being screwed over by their favourite company and don't mind Though I'm very happy to say that I'm not one of them!

As I said, Apple's strategy could end up being a precedence for other phone manufacturers following their lead - which is very negative change for the consumer.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sadly, only their crappy Apple Bluetooth headset (that small black one) will give the battery indicator on the phone. I too have something different (a great Jawbone)

That sux, and exactly what I was expecting/afraid of. Oh well....

 

[ZaoPetra]

My iPhone now works with my car stereo

I don't know if this has come up yet or not but my iphone now plays through my 30pin connector attached to my Alpine car stereo. This is definetely the best part of the update that I have experienced.

 

[G4R2]

if the customer pays half price up front, then its a subsisized phone.. and that makes a difference.

I'm glad there's a load of Mac users who like being screwed over by their favourite company and don't mind Though I'm very happy to say that I'm not one of them!

As I said, Apple's strategy could end up being a precedence for other phone manufacturers following their lead - which is very negative change for the consumer.

No Mac user is getting screwed over by Apple. They're only getting screwed over by their own incorrect expectations. Apple has clearly indicated that the iPhone is a closed platform. It has more recently indicated that any hacks to the iPhone could potentially render the device inoperable. And yet people who are intelligent enough to install the hacks evidently aren't intelligent enough to take these warnings seriously or consider the consequences.

Simply purchasing at full price does not mean that the company that manufactures the product is responsible for any damages that users make to it due to their desires to hack or mod it. A person who purchases a new car and decides that, as their right, they prefer to run nitro glycerin through the internal combustion engine instead of unleaded is probably not going to be covered under the warranty when they take their puddle of metal to the dealer for repairs. And that's actually a good thing for consumers.

Apple similarly is not under any requirement to make certain that whatever modifications you make to the phone are going to be covered when the software is updated. No one is arguing that it isn't your right to try to hack or mod your phone. It's also your right to put it in the microwave to see what will happen or to test its aerodynamic properties by using it as frisbee. Installing update 1.1.1 on a hacked iPhone is like throwing the device at a brick wall.

And there really isn't an issue at this point with Apple denying customers choices. Apple was up front that the iPhone is a closed platform. If a customer doesn't like it they can go elsewhere. There are plenty of choices.

Should the iPhone be an open system? That's another debate. But as of now the product that Apple is selling isn't open and if customer decides to make changes to the device it's at their own risk, whether they like it or not.

 

[JPark]

I don't know if this has come up yet or not but my iphone now plays through my 30pin connector attached to my Alpine car stereo. This is definetely the best part of the update that I have experienced.

I don't own an iPhone but I had been wondering if I'd be able to use my existing car setup. That's good news!

However, you're in the wrong forum. We're not discussing the release of iPhone firmware update 1.1.1.

 

[thugpoet22]

Truthfully i think apple is wack for this one. I mean rather then rendering iphones usless they should at least let them receive regular updates to maintain stability. But then again it doesn't matter somebody will hopefully figure out a way around this update as well. I don't even own a iphone and i was upset by this one.