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?
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.
reverse unlock (relock)
- Thread starter Warped1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
