LaPorte Rips Apple on Radio

[carfac]

I was just listening to Leo LaPortes show, and MAN is he ripping Apple a new one. He sounds really pissed.

And he gets it- it is NOT just about the iPhone, it is about consumer rights.

Nothing yet, but you can probably expect something on his website blog here soon:

http://techguylabs.com/radio/ShowNotes/Show391

 

[LizKat]

Oh right, does he say anything about the consumer's right to RTF terms of use?

Put this issue in front of an adult American and he'll side with Apple on it.

Put this issue in front of any US judge and he'll have to side with Apple on it.

It's only people who are *really* *special* who think they can buy a product, ignore everything told them about it that is inconvenient to their purpose, and then imagine they have recourse to anything but the sound of their own gnashing of teeth when they mung the thing by doing what Apple told them not to do TWICE (1, don't mess with it and 2, if you messed with it, don't update it).

 

[carfac]

From Leo's Rant:

People agreed to the 2 year contract with AT&T. Along comes White-Hats who unlocked the iPhone. Apple even agreed that people don’t mind people using Apps on the iPhone. It’s legal to unlock any cell phone owned by you. Apple later warned that this could be damaging to the iPhone and said they would not support users. The iPhone 1.1.1 Update bricks the iPhone. It makes it unusable. You have a $400 paperweight.

It’s possible that technically there was no other way, but it’s highly unlikely that it was the case.

When you put protection on something. Music, Cell Phones, PDA’s…etc. When users buy something, it’s their property. They should be allowed to do whatever they want with it

 

[4ndr3w]

He also posted it on his blog.

http://leoville.com/blog/2007/09/29/1037/

I see a storm brewing on the iPhone horizon. And I'm with Leo.

 

[jt2ga65]

Put this issue in front of an adult American and he'll side with Apple on it.

Put this issue in front of any US judge and he'll have to side with Apple on it.

I can't agree with that statement. There are far too many people with differences of opinions to state that an "adult" American will side with Apple. And unless you have a legal background, I would recommend avoiding statements of what a judge might decide.

I think that it is the job of every adult American to carefully review all aspects of the argument and make an informed decisions, but in realist we know that there aren't any Americans (or anyone else in western society) that will bother to base their decision on the facts outside of a court of law.

-jt2

 

[plumbingandtech]

Apple told them not to do TWICE (1, don't mess with it and 2, if you messed with it, don't update it).

+1

It’s possible that technically there was no other way, but it’s highly unlikely that it was the case.

And the proof for this is...... ah yes. another non software person telling us how apple's OS SHOULD work. I'll toss that opinion in the circular filing bin thank you.

When you put protection on something. Music, Cell Phones, PDA’s…etc. When users buy something, it’s their property. They should be allowed to do whatever they want with it

Sorry Leo. The intellectual proptery that makes up the OS is NOT YOURS. Get over it.

. It makes it unusable. You have a $400 paperweight.

Not for me Leo. Mine just works fine.


I wonder if Leo complains when he uses other products in an unintended way?

Dear BMW, I put the oversized size tires on my car and ruined my shock absorbers. What? You won't honor your guarantee!!! Why do hate america and consumers BMW?



Sorry leo.

You hacked your phone, expect problems.


I suggest you buy an openmoko if you think your hacking "rights" outweighs apple's right to update software (by which _may_ zonk out the hacks you placed in there in the first place.)

 

[wordmunger]

The cow analogy on his blog doesn't quite work. He says Apple's killing your cow because you bought it to make milk and now you want to make cheese.

But if we actually followed the analogy properly it would work like this:

Apple says: You can buy our cow but you can only use it to make milk. If you decide to make cheese, we can't guarantee it will work for milk, or even for cheese, in the future.

You buy the cow anyway, and you modify the cow to make cheese (not sure how this would actually work. Maybe some biotech hacking or something).

Next apple says: Okay, we're pretty sure if you keep buying feed from us and you've modified your cow to make cheese, it won't work any more.

You buy the feed anyway. Your cow stops making milk and cheese.

If you didn't like Apple's terms, you shouldn't have bought the cow from them.

That said, I think Apple's terms stink, which is one of the reasons I don't have an iPhone. (The other is that I'd be so distracted by the thing that I'd never ever get any work done again).

 

[carfac]

Dear BMW, I put the oversized size tires on my car and ruined my shock absorbers. What? You won't honor your guarantee!!!

VERY bad analogy.

More like, I bought a BMW, and put snow tires on it. BMW updates their engine computer, and suddenly the car does not start, the radio does not work, the wipers are dead, the lights do not come on- nothing.

 

[carfac]

The cow analogy on his blog doesn't quite work. He says Apple's killing your cow because you bought it to make milk and now you want to make cheese.

But if we actually followed the analogy properly it would work like this:

Apple says: You can buy our cow but you can only use it to make milk. If you decide to make cheese, we can't guarantee it will work for milk, or even for cheese, in the future.

You buy the cow anyway, and you modify the cow to make cheese (not sure how this would actually work. Maybe some biotech hacking or something).

Next apple says: Okay, we're pretty sure if you keep buying feed from us and you've modified your cow to make cheese, it won't work any more.

You buy the feed anyway. Your cow stops making milk and cheese.

If you didn't like Apple's terms, you shouldn't have bought the cow from them.

That said, I think Apple's terms stink, which is one of the reasons I don't have an iPhone. (The other is that I'd be so distracted by the thing that I'd never ever get any work done again).

I think this is CLOSE... I would just change it to:

You buy the feed anyway. Your cow rolls over, four feet in the air, dead.

I think we can all agree, this would be excessive. If Apple just stopped selling you feed, we could all agree this is fair to all parties.

But with the iPhone, that is NOT how Apple did it- they killed the cow. What would have been better, and avoided a lot of controversy is if the 1.1.1 upgrade TESTED the firmware, and if it did not match up to 1.0.2, then REFUSE to upgrade. But no, they KILLED the cow- that is the problem.

I am also of the belief that if Apple is going to kill phones (and note that SOME of them seem to be non-unlicked), and they know they are going to kill phones (whether intentional or not), they should offer a firmware upgrade to get a phone back to factory.

 

[plumbingandtech]

VERY bad analogy.

More like, I bought a BMW, and put snow tires on it. BMW updates their engine computer, and suddenly the car does not start, the radio does not work, the wipers are dead, the lights do not come on- nothing.

No. Snow tires are not the same as a hack. Snow tires are to be expected in regions of the country.

Hacking software introduced millions of possible places where an update from apple can fail.

Which is the case here. Apple needs to assume the state of the OS and its files. If a person moves them or deletes via a hack them then apple's update can fail.

Snow tires in your analogy are like backdrop pictures in iphone terms.

 

[Limeyness]

When you put protection on something. Music, Cell Phones, PDA’s…etc. When users buy something, it’s their property. They should be allowed to do whatever they want with it

They can do what they want with it, but if they break it by using it in a way not intended, the seller has no obligation to fix it.

 

[aristobrat]

VERY bad analogy.

More like, I bought a BMW, and put snow tires on it. BMW updates their engine computer, and suddenly the car does not start, the radio does not work, the wipers are dead, the lights do not come on- nothing.

If you're going to do a car analogy, shouldn't you pick a piece of a car that's as significant to the proper running of the car as the OS on the iPhone is to the proper running of the phone?

 

[megfilmworks]

And unless you have a legal background, I would recommend avoiding statements of what a judge might decide.
-jt2

Why not? Most lawyers don't know what a judge will do either.
Can you say "settlement", the most popular word in the US legal system?

 

[aristobrat]

I am also of the belief that if Apple is going to kill phones (and note that SOME of them seem to be non-unlicked), and they know they are going to kill phones (whether intentional or not), they should offer a firmware upgrade to get a phone back to factory.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple, after a couple of more days, released exactly what you're talking about.

You know, let the people sweat it for a bit (thinking that they've lost their $$$$ phone), then release a magical application that resets all fubared iPhones back to factory freshness.

Think of the good press they'd get for that.

 

[carfac]

If you're going to do a car analogy, shouldn't you pick a piece of a car that's as significant to the proper running of the car as the OS on the iPhone is to the proper running of the phone?

A car should be able to run on any properly sized tires- snow, racing, etc. A phone should be able to run on any properly configured network. Seems like a fair anology.

The unlock simply removes a block that only allows the phone to recognize ATT. T-Mo and other networks are not significantly different that ATT, at least not to the extent that they would endanger one using the phone. It is common practice t move phones from one providor to another, just as one would switch from regular to snow tires.

 

[wordmunger]

But with the iPhone, that is NOT how Apple did it- they killed the cow. What would have been better, and avoided a lot of controversy is if the 1.1.1 upgrade TESTED the firmware, and if it did not match up to 1.0.2, then REFUSE to upgrade. But no, they KILLED the cow- that is the problem.

I don't think we can say this for certain. There are lots of claims that genuises have been able to restore bricked iPhones. There are claims by hackers that they might be able to restore functionality. I don't think the cow is dead. But a cow that doesn't make milk isn't good for much.

Of course, you can't eat your iPhone with a side of fries and cole slaw either, so, in any case, I'd say this analogy is dead.

 

[carfac]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple, after a couple of more days, released exactly what you're talking about.

I REALLY think that would be smart.

For the record, I will stay at 1.0.2. But I think if Apple did release, it would make their case in the media stronger and more sympathetic. As it is, they are starting to look like bullies.

 

[LizKat]

*snip*... unless you have a legal background, I would recommend avoiding statements of what a judge might decide... *snip*

Oh please. Plenty of people get paid to say what a judge might decide, I'm offering it at this far better price. Plus, I'm right.

 

[Fuchal]

Good for Leo. I've always liked him.

Even though I don't really care about bricking the hacked phones, since I have no reason to unlock mine, I do think it's about time Apple gets some slaps to the face. It's been needed for a few years now.

It's good for Apple. They need to be hit every once and a while.

 

[sonictonic]

I've always been a huge fan of Leo and I listen to many of his podcasts, but his stance on this subject seems kind of ignorant and it's starting to annoy me.

 

[Peace]

I've always liked Leo but he went too far this time.

Lets use a much better analogy..

You buy a brand new BMW.It has an onboard computer system that does what it advertises.Checks the air pressure.Gas mileage and other nifty stuff.

You drive it off the lot knowing about the warranty.It would be dumb to mess with the car because it's under warranty right?.

A non-BMW accredited auto repair shop starts advertising a new way to do other things in your new BMW.And it's available over the internet.You have to download it and install the new software in the built in chip in the car.It's an attractive deal because it does some things you wish the new BMW would do but doesn't.You go ahead and install it anyway knowing it will void the warranty on your new BMW.But you don't care because the attractiveness is so appealing.

2 months later the local dealership starts selling the same exact BMW for $1000 cheaper.Do you get mad? Yes because you think it should be the same price you paid.Oh well.BMW is nice enough to give you a gift certificate for $500 towards various accessories at the dealership.You accept it.

Now.

You've installed that cool software in the onboard chip on the BMW.Like I said knowing it would void your warranty.BMW finds out about this non accredited auto mechanic and decides it could hurt the auto.It decides to do a software upgrade to the BMW's and warns owners that the upgrade could "brick" the onboard computer and gives them a few days to try and restore it to original specs.
After waiting it asks owners to drive in ( plug in ) and get the new software.
you've decided that you want to take a chance and don't restore the software in the BMW and take it in anyway.The certified BMW mechanics install the new software and your car stops working.



Who's fault is that ?



Leo you're wrong...

 

[Sbrocket]

A car should be able to run on any properly sized tires- snow, racing, etc. A phone should be able to run on any properly configured network. Seems like a fair anology.

The unlock simply removes a block that only allows the phone to recognize ATT. T-Mo and other networks are not significantly different that ATT, at least not to the extent that they would endanger one using the phone. It is common practice t move phones from one providor to another, just as one would switch from regular to snow tires.

You don't even know what you're talking about. The unlocking methods are not some simple solution that flip a switch in some already existing plist on the iPhone and enable already existing functionality. They modify the modem firmware that drives the phone. You can't seriously hold Apple responsible when unofficial, unsupported modifications you made to the core OS of their product don't mesh well with official, supported firmware updates. It makes no logical sense. Going with your car analogy, you don't blame the car manufacturer when you choose to make a change how some core component of a car work and then an update to the car's operating software breaks the car.

Consumers had prior notice. There were warnings while installing the update. It makes sense had anyone bothered to think for once that a firmware update might cause problems when the firmware had already been modified. It just doesn't make any sense to blame this on Apple. Wallow in your ignorance all you want, but all you're doing is playing the blame game.

 

[carfac]

Peace:

I am with you most of the way. But there is a problem in your scenario, just as in the situation you are analogizing. And that is Apple (or BMW) warning "owners that the upgrade could "brick" the onboard computer and gives them a few days to try and restore it to original specs" without enabling a pathway to officially do that restore.

By that very admission (no matter how carefully worded), Apple/BMW KNOWS that there is a possibility of making an expensive piece of machinery a useless hunk of metal. (I am NOT going to argue intentional or not- we can agree it happens, right?) They know this is a result in a non-standard firmware.

What I am saying that complete bricking is a bit too serious for Apple or BMW to not take some proactive steps to prevent that, especially in view of the FACT they KNOW it can happen. The Warning is NOT enough. If they are going to releaser something with such serious consequences, they need to:

1) Either provide a "Back-Flash" to get the firmware back to normal;
or
2) Put a simple check in the upgrade firmware to checksum (or whatever, I am not a programmer!) to make sure the firmware is SAFELY upgradeable.

It is easy enough to do- try and install iTunes 6.0 on your computer. Won't work, will it? Why? Because Apples software CHECKS. How hard would it have been to do the same thing to 1.1.1? It would have been immaterial at all (again, I am NOT a programmer, but you can't tell me it would have cost any more than an hour or two of one programmers time).

When Apple releases something with such a huge, crippling potential, and when they offer no way to revert, Apple is definitely the villain. Apple sat by and said nothing for a month while this was all done- they wait until the unlock is installed on a large percent of their installed base, and then do not offer a cure- THAT is why they are a villain, and have mishandled this.

 

[Cleverboy]

People agreed to the 2 year contract with AT&T. Along comes White-Hats who unlocked the iPhone. Apple even agreed that people don’t mind people using Apps on the iPhone. It’s legal to unlock any cell phone owned by you. Apple later warned that this could be damaging to the iPhone and said they would not support users. The iPhone 1.1.1 Update bricks the iPhone. It makes it unusable. You have a $400 paperweight.

It’s possible that technically there was no other way, but it’s highly unlikely that it was the case.

When you put protection on something. Music, Cell Phones, PDA’s…etc. When users buy something, it’s their property. They should be allowed to do whatever they want with it

I'm trying REALLY REALLY hard to keep liking Leo. I think he has a great voice and a wonderful range of experience... but every so often, he gets it VERY VERY wrong. Read above. AGAIN, AGAIN! He keeps mixing 3rd party app support and unlocking. We know you unlocked your phone Leo, tough nuggies. Hopefully you knew not to firmware update it too (and hopefully you weren't lying that you did your unlock on someone ELSE's phone). Apple has issued a public statement about ambivalence to iPhone hacking for 3rd party apps, they've also been clear that UNLOCKING is something they explicitly design their phone against. See any incompatibility there? When Leo got all pissed and started calling his podcasts "netcasts", I sware, everytime I listen to TWIT now, it feels like I can hear him being petty. No one's going to change to "netcasts" Leo, you weren't that much of an influence. Don't keep getting so uptight about the small stuff.

Yes, you can do WHATEVER you want to your iPhone. Apple isn't stopping you! Just expect that you'll deal with the consequences of not being supported in the future. There is a clear reason to me why Apple doesn't want iPhone to be a full-on computer. Computers have a range of problems as it is, and Apple is still T-plus 3 months from launch on this new platform. People hack it up, and expect full support. How's that even make the slightest sense? I restored before I updated. I hope to get my NES back someday, but if it meant so much to me, I would have waited, forever if need be.

If people begin hacking MORE than just putting new files and executables on the phone, YES, expect the phone to have serious problems later! I mean... HELLO? The Unofficial iPhone Dev Team took a while to admit they came up with a method of "reverting" the phone back to "factory-refresh" condition, but that they were making sure they had a way to RE-UNLOCK after upgrading to 1.1.1. If unlocking is so minor and non-destructive, they should release the "re-lock" program ASAP and worry about politics and business later.

I'm very close to giving up on Leo Leporte. It's been a long ride, but between him and Gizmodo, they both begin coming off as a gang of whiney children. I'm sorry. It's ironic that everytime he mentions the name Gizmodo, he whispers "not my favorite". I think that's some petty issue too, but I must have missed it. Eesh.

~ CB

 

[carfac]

You don't even know what you're talking about.

Nor, it seems, do you.

The unlocking methods are not some simple solution that flip a switch in some already existing plist on the iPhone and enable already existing functionality. They modify the modem firmware that drives the phone.

Of COURSE they alter the firmware- whats your point? 1.1.1 also alters firmware. Unlocking changes 4 or five bytes, to allow the phone to recive other carriers- it is NOT a rewrite of the whole firmware. It simply changes a couple data points. It does NOT perform 100's of changes, allow new freqs, or totally mess with the basic firmware. It just allows more than JUST ATT.

You can't seriously hold Apple responsible when unofficial, unsupported modifications you made to the core OS of their product don't mesh well with official, supported firmware updates.

No, but I do hold them responsible for knowingly releasing software or firmware they KNOWINGLY released that destroys phones without PROVIDING A METHOD TO RESTORE THOSE PHONES BEFOREHAND. (Sorry, caps lock stuck, not meant to yell!)

Consumers had prior notice.

Not two weeks ago when they made the choice to unlock. They did NOT know Apple would prove to be so vindictive as to brick their phones if the dared try another carrier.

There were warnings while installing the update. It makes sense had anyone bothered to think for once that a firmware update might cause problems when the firmware had already been modified. It just doesn't make any sense to blame this on Apple. Wallow in your ignorance all you want, but all you're doing is playing the blame game.

I agree- anyone who upgraded is STUPID. I certainly didn't. But Apple also deserves a lot of criticism because of their hard ass attitude in this, too, and THAT is what I am saying. I am criticizing Apple for poorly handling this, NOT for the upgrade itself.