Before or after, it really doesn't matter. You're still bound by the terms and conditions of the SLA. I don't recall, but I'll bet we all clicked a little box to approve the SLA during the activation process. If not, Apple should clean that up and force it before anyone agrees to activate.
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 firmware update 1.1.1 released!
- Thread starter jayleb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Before or after, it really doesn't matter. You're still bound by the terms and conditions of the SLA. I don't recall, but I'll bet we all clicked a little box to approve the SLA during the activation process. If not, Apple should clean that up and force it before anyone agrees to activate.
That wasn't what I intended to say. I was responding to the comment above. However, I think it's important to distinguish between 'hackers' and people who simply need an unlocked phone or need certain functionality. Most people who have added software are people who just wanted something that didn't exist on the iphone - instant messenging, for example. I unlocked my phone because I roaming with ATT is not practical for me in terms of cost and in terms of me being reachable when I'm abroad since people don't want to call a foreign number to reach me locally. I'm not a hacker, nor or any of the people I know who have unlocked phones. We're not interested in code or any of the underlying complexities of the phone - we're simply interested in using the phone in a way that fits with our work and lifestyle.
I'm saying that APple COULD have solves all this by simply requiring activation in the store. Period. Since it didn't, I feel it is partially responsible for what has happened. I'm responsible for my phone and what I did with it, but Apple is disingenuous for continuing to sell phones without requiring activation on the spot, and then turning around and bricking (through a combination of their choices and the user's stupidity in this case) customers' expensive phones. That's not cool.
Another thing I think is important is that unlocking has never been a big deal with any other phone or manufacturer. This is new to Apple and ATT. ATT has had a policy to unlock phones after a certain period of contract, as have many providers. There are countless services that will do this for you and your phone will continue to work even with firmware upgrades. In other parts of the world, like the UK, unlocking is exceedingly common and there are absolutely no repercussions for the user. This is only to say that if Apple wants to completely change the rules, it also needs to make more of an effort to tell everybody of what, EXACTLY, will happen if they hack or unlock their phones. They haven't. Even their warning used 'may' rather than 'will'. And their new edge off switch uses 'may' reduce roaming charges - instead of saying that turning off edge WILL prevent the phone from using a data network and therefore no data charges will be incurred. Apple is consistently and deliberately being vague with all this to cover its back. They can do better, and should do better.
I think it does matter. It should not be possible to use the phone without agreeing to the software and hardware licenses. THAT is what an agreement is - both sides need to 'agree' about the terms BEFORE usage otherwise it's not an agreement. Since Apple doesn't really care if you activate or not, as long as it can take your money, they're not eager to enforce activation. It they SIMPLY decided to require activation when you buy the iphobe, most of these problems would go away - but they don't.
"Except as permitted by applicable law..."
You mean, laws such as the DMCA exemption that specifically permit modifying the firmware to allow cellular phone network interoperability...?
Remember, this is being phrased as a license agreement. That is, it is spelling out the terms and conditions under which a copyright owner is licensing its intellectual property to be used by the end user. So, the "applicable law" is copyright law. And copyright law in the US gives the end-user the right to hack their phone for the sole purpose of network interoperability.
Anyway, I have always been convinced that the unlockers are not breaking any law by having unlocked their phones. ("Breaking the law" is not synonymous with "contractual non-compliance".)
I was originally of the opinion that they might still be breaching their contract with Apple. (For which there could be consequences, but not criminal consequences.)
Having read the contract, though, I am now not entirely convinced that they have even breached Apple's software license either.
If they went ahead and entered into the second layer of the contract - a service agreement with AT&T - then I still agree that such an unlocker cannot get out of that contract until either their 2 years is up, or until they pay the early termination fee. (But hey -- if they terminate the contract by buying out, then maybe they're also forfeiting their future entitlement to software updates too!)
And I take this as Apple's ace in the hole to protect them from complaints of bricked phones arising from new firmware updates that happen to be incompatible with the particular techniques that have been used up until now to hack the phone.
Both sides did agree. If you bought the phone, you gave assent by performance, consistent with the UCC. This is how commerce works.
If you wanted to review the exact terms, you are responsible for doing so before purchase, and both Apple and AT&T are happy to comply with that request, as are all companies acting lawfully. Unless the term differs from boilerplate language so dramatically as to be unconscionable or unless the term is illegal, it is assumed by law that you agreed to the terms. If you didn't care enough to review the terms before entering into the agreement, you waive your right to contest those terms. You accepted the offer without one word of contest or counteroffer. It's a done deal. If you had made a counteroffer, it would have been rejected and you would not own the device.
Their requirement (or lack thereof) for in-store activation is immaterial. They provide a direct and convenient, not to mention time-saving, method of activation. There are no false pretenses of portability to other carriers--none whatsoever. It is neither disingenuous nor blameworthy.
Well, it doesn't violate the exemption, and also there is no precedent for blocking software updates, so that's a "no" on two separate counts.
The exemption merely requires that unlockers not be sued under copyright law. Unlockers are free to unlock the new version of the firmware, or the version that comes after, or the bugfix that comes out 2 years from now. They're permitted to do so on any version of the firmware. They are not granted a right to have access in perpetuity across all versions and variations because they got through once. Their unlocking, based as it is on specific firmware code, is protected only on that specific firmware code. If they change the software and the unlock no longer works, that's just the nature of the game.
The fact that the unlocking tools are open source cuts both ways on this. In addition to enabling people to unlock the Phone and develop their own code, they're also showing Apple how they did it, making it easier to fix. The code also exposes a clear security vulnerability in Apple software, which regardless of "good" uses, poses an unacceptable risk for "bad" uses which Apple has an obligation to fix.
I will assume you are right because I'm not interested enough to research myself. Regardless of the legal issue here, Apple could have required activation in the store, thereby ensuring that everybody who bought the iphone also signed up with ATT. They did not, even though they knew, through the sale vs. activation statistics they undoubtedly had access to, that there was/is a big discrepancy.
So you are saying also that the average consumer should know that there is software license on a telephone? I think that assumption is not reasonable or fair and would bet you that the vast majority of consumers would have no idea that by using their phone they have entered into a software agreement with Apple. Often there are seals that need to be broken before one uses a product - seems reasonable to me, rather than allowing unpacking, activation etc before the user has easy access to the legal terms. What is Apple's responsibility to inform them pro-actively?
Personally, I think it creates more question about the legality of unlocking rather than proving it's ok. The other "applicable" law has it's own issues relative to this matter.
Just to be clear - are you talking about the act of unlocking the iPhone being unlawful (I disagree)?
Or you talking about Apple's response (releasing a firmware update which bricks the unlocked phones) being permissible (I agree)?
[edit]
[/edit]goosnarrggh said:
Those sales vs. activation statistics you are so fond of quoting had little, if anything, to do with people not intending ever to activate. It was largely due to backlogs in activation due to the lines being swamped, and to the fact that some people who bought on Friday night or Saturday (the last 1 1/2 days of the quarter) decided to wait until Sunday or later to activate. [Many bought for gifts. In fact, Woz bought a couple dozen, and they still haven't all been activated]
Further, if you honestly are trying to insist that anything greater than a very tiny minority of soccer moms bought a $600 iPhone (and entered into a minimum $1440+ service contract) WITHOUT knowing they were entering into an exclusive agreement, you're not just being disingenuous, you're being delusional. The buyer certainly knows that the iPhone is nonfunctional without a two year exclusive service agreement with at&t. Once on notice, the burden is on the buyer to find out what such an agreement involves, not on the seller to spoon feed the cerebrally incapacitated.
For those of you are complaing about using the iPhone only on AT&T, do yourself a favor.... keep your hard earned money in your pocket. We all knew the situation before the iPhone released. So why are people trying to find "legal loop holes" to get out of it? If apple does in deed brick your iPhone for hacking it, guess what go cry to the hackers and not to apple. Like any company, they are protecting their investments/products.
Unless they were planning on staffing their stores with AT&T employees, this is simply not possible. And anyway, what difference would it have made? It's not like anyone operates under the assumption that the AT&T logo on the box meant nothing. No one should need that kind of hand-holding. What if it was a gift? What if the user wasn't sure what plan to get? What if they wanted to purchase it in advance and sign up after the end of their current contract a few weeks later? What if they didn't have all the information on hand to port their information over?
You're advocating a position which would have been detrimental and time consuming in every imaginable way.
So? What do they care?
Uh, yeah. There's a software license on just about every product ever made containing software. There's also a software license on every Apple product. Whether a customer actually knows about any of these things is irrelevant. It is his duty and his duty alone to find out the terms he's agreeing to. The seller's only duty is to respond to requests.
The user has easy access to the legal terms, and the box is sealed. You really can't get any easier without being strapped to a chair.
None. If you want to know the terms, you ask for them. It's very simple.
Speakerphone? Bah! How about whisperphone?
This was the touted feature that made me want to upgrade. Now, my custom ringtones are gone and I still have a quiet speakerphone. My wife's stupid freebie phone has a speaker that will blow you out of the room. My iPhone won't even cause a flutter.
C'mon Apple! Why do my tunes play so loud yet my calls are a mere whisper?
I wish I wouldn't have updated. At least my ringer would still play "Bring out yer dead!"
Arrrgh!
This was the touted feature that made me want to upgrade. Now, my custom ringtones are gone and I still have a quiet speakerphone. My wife's stupid freebie phone has a speaker that will blow you out of the room. My iPhone won't even cause a flutter.
C'mon Apple! Why do my tunes play so loud yet my calls are a mere whisper?
I wish I wouldn't have updated. At least my ringer would still play "Bring out yer dead!"
Arrrgh!
Well, if all that you are saying is correct, this really is a country where corporations have no obligations/responsibilities and consumers no rights. You know, it's weird to live here and always feel that as a consumer I am obligated to do extensive research before buying anything because the companies are allowed to state anything and never be held responsible for their statements. I grew up in northern Europe and went to school and graduate school in the U.K. and always felt relatively satisfied that there existed laws to protect consumers. The American attitude seems to be that the consumer needs to have done extensive research in order to reveal what the companies try to reveal through subtle language usage(not necessarily talking about the iphone, but more generally). At the same time this is a country where many people are uneducated, poor, uninsured and unable to participate on equal terms by virtue of their backgrounds and ability to be heard - how are those people suppose to get through the legal pages on the iphone? Oh, right, Apple is interested in them so this doesn't apply.
Anyway....if you say so. I'm happy I'm a dual citizen and can leave easily.
ROTFLMAO. Rather than submit to reason and common sense, you are now concerned about the "uneducated, poor, [and] uninsured" who can't understand the legal pages before buying their $1900+ (with contract)iPhones! Couldn't they just have their chauffers explain it to them? Unbelievable.
Oh, and have a nice flight.
This is what I love about this country. People are so black and white about everything. Take it or leave it - do it our way or **** you. Very mature. That's why the world loves this place.
I'm saying that the assumption around here is that everybody is informed, educated, literate and knows that they are entering into a legal agreement just by using the iphone. I don't think that's true and I think people who suggest that are incorrect.
I knew exactly what I got into when I bought my iphone and I knew that it required an ATT contract. I also would never have bought if it if it couldn't be unlocked. I don't feel cheated, upset or anything about my phone. I like it, but I don't like Apple anymore at all. And I've loyally bought their products for the past 16 years. Probably spent $100,000 on Apple equipment.
What I didn't know is that the phone would bring out the worst in this forum: those who are brain washed by Apple, Anti-consumer and pro-corporation, isolationist, those that are happy that people get their phones messed up, those that are judgemental about people who unlock and all the other nasty things around here lately.
I think Apple could have handled all this much better, including the latest firmware update - when was the last time you were able to install a MAC firmware update if it wasn't compatible with your computer? Never, because Apple didn't want you to and a message came up telling you that you can't. I think that locking customers to a carrier forever after they bought an expensive phone is nasty and goes against free competition and choice. I think that, as a whole, Americans as consumers are constantly taken advantage of and, worse yet, they don't protest.
So,yeah, no need to wish me a happy flight. I'll be as happy to leave as you seem to be to see me leave. This is what has happened in this country: people who don't agree with you are your enemy and people who criticise are unpatriotic. Same thing with political debate as with Apple fanboys - black or white.
You're wasting your breath(typing) PDE. Differences of opinion are apparently not welcome by some. They know what they know, and nothing will change that. Not the lines in the Apple stores in New York with people showing passports buying handfuls of iPhones. Not the couple hundred thousand people that downloaded the anySim software. By the way, not all of us Americans only see in black and white, right or wrong.
So who are you really mad at? You knew "exactly" what you were getting into. Had you bothered to ask either at&t or apple, you would have been told it couldn't be unlocked. But you either didn't bother, or didn't care when told you couldn't. You have no one but yourself to blame.
This discussion is not about being "brain washed by Apple, Anti-consumer and pro-corporation, isolationist, those that are happy that people get their phones messed up, those that are judgemental about people who unlock." Its about the failure of some people, such as youself, to understand that apple and at&t are offering the iPhone in the U.S. with certain well-documented, restrictive terms and conditions. I doubt anyone really likes it, but most realize that those conditions were necessary for the iPhone to succeed, and that's the way it is, for now. If anyone wants to unlock, go for it, and good luck. Just don't whine when it creates problems down the line, because there have been a myriad of warnings. And this has absolutely nothing to do with dissent, patriotism, enemies, etc.. It's only about existing law in the telecom industry, and the failure of some to accept it simply because they don't like it. Some also may think it's stupid that they have to drive 65 mph on roads that were designed for 80mph, especially when there is zero traffic, but good luck arguing that one if you get stopped. No one likes locked carrier service, but I would be willing to bet that in the end, a successful iPhone probably will have a huge impact in the push toward open access, because that's really where apple wants to go. Partnering with a single carrier simply was a necessary evil for now.
Consumers have plenty of rights. Being ignorant is not one of them. It's no different anywhere else in the Western world as far as knowing the terms before buying a product goes.
What statement are they not being held to?
Well, if they're uneducated, poor, and uninsured, they have some particularly bizarre and unfortunate priorities if they're buying an iPhone.
The way out of the trap is through education, competence, and self-responsibility. The government owes a substantial duty to make it possible, but that's neither here nor there in a discussion about a luxury technology product.
I suppose that Apple had the right not to do any testing with unlocked phones, be unaware of any problems, not issue any warnings, and be very surprised if complaints about bricked phones arrive. On the other hand, it seems that someone at Apple tried out what happens if you upgrade an unlocked phone and found it was bricked. And at that point Apple had the legal duty to issue a warning.
Composite A/V Cable
Does anyone know if the new Apple Composite A/V Cable works with version 1.0.2 of the iPhone firmware? I've heard some people say it will work with "iPhone" but I don't know if that means you have to upgrade to 1.1.1, which I can't do, because I'm using T-Mobile.
Does anyone know if the new Apple Composite A/V Cable works with version 1.0.2 of the iPhone firmware? I've heard some people say it will work with "iPhone" but I don't know if that means you have to upgrade to 1.1.1, which I can't do, because I'm using T-Mobile.