Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

reverse unlock (relock)

Le Big Mac said:
+1. The most Apple will do is update the software to remove the unlock. They're not going to destroy the phone or make it inoperable. Two reasons: first, it would be a consumer relations nightmare. Second, it arguably would be illegal. The copyright office ruled it is permissible to unlock a phone. Nothing says the company can't bar you from using phone on their network, but they can't just destroy it.
Click to expand...

Okay I know there is a ruling that it's legal to unlock phones in the States, even if you wind up barred from using them anywhere. But how in the world did that end up in the hands of our copyright administrators? FCC, sure, patents and trademarks, maybe, but copyright?
 
sanford said:
I actually suggested that first, if he was given any trouble about the return.



Yeah, well I guess we know how you vote. You can spout your personal responsibility rhetoric as you wish, but I unabashedly practice situational ethics, as is the natural behavior of human beings.

I have bellowed long and loud on my position *against* unlocking iPhones, on these very forums, and taken quite a bit of heat for it by proponents of unlocking.

The fact is, applying situational ethics, Apple will far more greatly financially benefit from selling a new iPhone, earning profit on the sale, forever locked to AT&T and their revenue-sharing deal and taking back that in-the-wild unlocked phone under their own set-forth 14-day policy, for which consideration the original poster would pay a 10% restocking fee, and a return Apple would then sell as a refurbished model, still at some good profit, no doubt.

Yet it was possible in dealing with the lowest order of Apple's sales operations, retail shop clerks and managers, he would run up against lunatic gutter authoritarians who do not have the wits or perspective to realize the overall greater benefit to the company of taking the phone back. So I offered him suggestions to avoid collisions with geek-thugs. I also offered him the option to straight-out tell the truth at the return.

Although your medical school education, and subsequent residency and experience in practice of psychiatry may lead you to believe I responded in a smart-assed manner because I knew I was wrong, I can assure I responded as such because you were being a self-superior snot over an unlocked iPhone, not the perpetration of a genocide by a cruel despot.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whoever you need to deal with at the store, you're advice of being honest in the first place is what SOULD be done. And "situational ethics?" Come on... Trying to sneak an unlocked phone back to the company, when you panic your phone may longer work... There's NOTHING ethical about this! hahaha! Think about what you're saying!

I couldn't care less about unlocking to be honest, so no, you didn't know how I vote. This isn't about unlocking at all. It's about doing something you KNOW may have consequence, and as soon as the panic sets it, being shady about it, and trying to become "honest" by doing something dishonest. Even a child will tell you this is wrong.

I choose not to unlock, and choose not to mod the phone. I knew the rules and stipulations before buying the phone, or learning about them well within my 14 day return policy. So did everyone buying or unlocking a phone. You bought it, TOUGH. You deal with the possible consequence. Again, personal responsibility.

I didn't post here trying to start a fight with you. I didn't even address you directly. You can stop with the personal bashing. It's a discussion on a phone for god's sake, why make this so personal? Take a breath, relax. It's a FORUM. 😀

I'm simply saying, It's not Apple's responsibility to warm up cold feet. He knew the risks when buying, now he should take personal responsibility, and not be sneaky, to replace HIS mistake. All this does is hurt business/customer relations for those people who follow the terms of service.
 
I think the beg for mercy approach is the right thing to do too. Except I'll never have to decide because like you, I researched the deal on offer, found it acceptable a d signed up, no unlocks, no hacks.

I wasn't promoting the other options as so much ethical as expedient and practical while doing Apple no harm. And I did feel sorry for the guy in realizing he had made a serious error in judgement.

Sorry for the personal jabs. Just a bit jangly today I suppose. Lot of work to do but can't because of waiting for clone to replace bad hard drive.


Anyway, if you've read the news, they're all getting bricked if they update so it's all over but the crying.

Daremo said:
Regardless of whoever you need to deal with at the store, you're advice of being honest in the first place is what SOULD be done. And "situational ethics?" Come on... Trying to sneak an unlocked phone back to the company, when you panic your phone may longer work... There's NOTHING ethical about this! hahaha! Think about what you're saying!

I couldn't care less about unlocking to be honest, so no, you didn't know how I vote. This isn't about unlocking at all. It's about doing something you KNOW may have consequence, and as soon as the panic sets it, being shady about it, and trying to become "honest" by doing something dishonest. Even a child will tell you this is wrong.

I choose not to unlock, and choose not to mod the phone. I knew the rules and stipulations before buying the phone, or learning about them well within my 14 day return policy. So did everyone buying or unlocking a phone. You bought it, TOUGH. You deal with the possible consequence. Again, personal responsibility.

I didn't post here trying to start a fight with you. I didn't even address you directly. You can stop with the personal bashing. It's a discussion on a phone for god's sake, why make this so personal? Take a breath, relax. It's a FORUM. 😀

I'm simply saying, It's not Apple's responsibility to warm up cold feet. He knew the risks when buying, now he should take personal responsibility, and not be sneaky, to replace HIS mistake. All this does is hurt business/customer relations for those people who follow the terms of service.
Click to expand...
 
Unlocked, but using AT&T

They are going be creating a issue if they brick phones, that have been unlocked, and have service with ATT. I know numerous people that have unlocked and still keep their contract with ATT. They do this, like me, becuase we travel all the time.

I do not beleive they would have a leg to stand on.
 
When the update installs it probably reflashes the baseband to a new version. What's interesting is - why would that brick the phone? It should, at worst, render the phone re-locked, but functional. If the firmware updater expects checksum value "XYZ" before it applies and it sees value "ABC", it should abort the install. Or it should just install right over it, putting the phone back into a state of being locked. But, instead, it sounds like it bricks the phone. That doesn't make sense - unless it's intentional. But I doubt that, because deliberately bricking unlocked phones would be illegal.
 
Fast Shadow said:
When the update installs it probably reflashes the baseband to a new version. What's interesting is - why would that brick the phone? It should, at worst, render the phone re-locked, but functional. If the firmware updater expects checksum value "XYZ" before it applies and it sees value "ABC", it should abort the install. Or it should just install right over it, putting the phone back into a state of being locked. But, instead, it sounds like it bricks the phone. That doesn't make sense - unless it's intentional. But I doubt that, because deliberately bricking unlocked phones would be illegal.
Click to expand...

It does brick it intentionally. Apple has said all along mods to iPhones make break them when updated. To send out a press release the night before a major update expected to deal with unlocks, a release that states the update may render your unlocked iPhone permanently inoperable is to say that is exactly what will happen. What's illegal about that? DMCA gives you the right to unlock your iPhone; it doesn't make it illegal for Apple to brick your iPhone if you install am update they told you not to install on an unlocked iPhone. Anybody who thinks this is an empty threat to scare people off unlocking is going to be out US$400.
 
steve31 said:
Apple cant force you to update itunes can they? I have many computers and if I leave the current itunes on one and use the iphone with this then there should be no way that apple could force the phone to lock again. This is what I am thinking.This should work???
Click to expand...

But then you can't update the iPhone to get new features either. No new iTunes, no new update for the iPhone, no new features.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back