Schiller on iPhone Unlocks and Incompatibility

[DeathChill]

I get that. But software in flash-able firmware and software stored in flash. Tantamount to the same thing. The device is ultimately as reliant and affected by one as the other, although firmware on the iPhone is more comparable to the BIOS on a computer, in that if you mess it up, the device may not be able to boot to the point the other software gets a shot at messing it up.

So say Apple's firmware updates simply patch the existing firmware. There's the problem. The patch is incompatible with the unlock-patched firmware and will therefore brick the iPhone. But if instead patching the firmware, you just re-flashed the whole firmware with expected firmware patched, no brick. If that's the case, Apple is choosing to patch when they could re-flash the whole thing to a stable firmware. They are choosing not to do this. That's tantamount to intentionally bricking unlocked devices as they have a choice. It's not the same as devising something that discovers a phone is unlocked and then bricks it, but by choosing this method of updating the firmware this time rather than choosing a method that spares the unlocked phone it *is* tantamount to intentional.

But, typically, when you update firmware you re-flash the whole thing, anyway, so I'm not even sure why this would be an issue. Re-flash the whole thing with the new version, and other than removing anything any user has done to the firmware, nothing bad happens. Like PSP hackers: if they have hacked firmware that supports home-brew games and other non-Sony functions, and they update to Sony's version of a new firmware, it never bricks the firmware, they just lose everything they had in the hacked firmware.

This is exactly what I was saying in the last thread. It appears if Apple is just patching the parts of the firmware rather then just reflashing it. The ONLY reasoning behind this that I can think of is so that it messes up unlocked iPhones as the previous firmware updates just reflashed the firmware.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is intentional. Maybe not intentional in the fact to brick phones, but intentional so that everyone is terrified to do any sort of hacking as they know Apple is addressing its updates specifically so that it will brick unlocked iPhones.

EDIT: As for saying that Apple rarely updates the baseband and hasn't yet, you're wrong. 1.0.1 updated the baseband.

 

[sanford]

Would you have a source for this info? Not that I'm doubting its legitimacy, but I just want to know if such laws are in place in the UK as well and if so the exact details of it. There's most likely some clause in there that Apple will be able to exploit that allows them to continue with their current business model with respect to the iphone.

George,

Those do sound like actual mobile phone laws in some Scandinavian countries. They are probably more or less accurate. Here's what I know about UK mobile phone unlocking laws:

You can legally lock a phone to a carrier for a contract term not to exceed 18 months. But, after six months of contract fulfillment by customer, carrier must at customer's request unlock said phone. But, more buts, they can charge a "reasonable" fee for the unlock, a "reasonable" fee I've heard can be as high as 50 or 60 quid, so reasonable maybe being not so cheap, reasonable to the carrier, not the customer. And, another but: But this unlocking does not terminate the contract at the time nor does it allow the customer to terminate the contract early; the customer must still fulfill the terms of the contract, that is paying on the contract for 12 more months or paying an early cancellation fee if there is such a provision for allowable early cancellation. Last but: But after six months of locked contract service, it would allow you if you say went to Spain for a couple weeks holiday, to pop in a local SIM and use a local, cheaper carrier without paying your UK carrier for international roaming.

 

[Compile 'em all]

This is exactly what I was saying in the last thread. It appears if Apple is just patching the parts of the firmware rather then just reflashing it.

Is that even possible? I highly doubt this is possible, to patch just part of the firmware. I think the clean baseband will simply overwrite the previous one.

 

[DeathChill]

Is that even possible? I highly doubt this is possible, to patch just part of the firmware. I think the clean baseband will simply overwrite the previous one.

Well, it's what the unlock does. It patches pieces of the baseband.

That's our point: if Apple were simply issuing a new baseband then the hacked one would be overwritten and not hurt your phone at all. However, Apple is saying updating will brick your iPhone and the only way that would happen is if Apple simply patched the firmware rather then did a clean update like any other company normally would.

 

[Compile 'em all]

Well, it's what the unlock does. It patches pieces of the baseband.

I think the unlock completely overwrites the original baseband. But you are right, it depends on what Apple will do...either patch the baseband or completely overwrite it. We will see today hopefully.

 

[3282872]

Both devices need to be jailbroken to get applications onto them, and that is a step in unlocking the iPhone. No jailbreak, no unlock. So if the security on the new iPhone firmware is similar to that on the Touch, you're not going to see the hackers just break down the walls in 48 hours, as they've been working on jailbreaking the Touch--unsuccessfully--for nearly two weeks.

So anyone who unlocks will be stuck at 1.0.2 for more than the 48 hours the poster I was replying to was theorizing.

1iFuntastic 3.0.5 doesn't "jailbreak" the phone, it "unshackles" it, which is an entirely different process. According to Apple, adding third party apps, ringtones and pictures won't cause the "bricking", but unlocking the iPhone by modifying the FIRMWARE will, so yes, 's and oranges. Besides, the iPod Touch hasn't been released to all Apple locations yet, so a lot of people haven't been able to purchase one for testing.

 

[sanford]

Yeah, Chill, that's what I mean by intentional, too. Not that they wrote some SuperBricker code all special for the updates, but intentional in that they are not avoiding bricking when it would be an easy thing, a thing that would cost them perhaps nothing in engineering time or cost because they already know how to do it from designing the iPhone software, to relock but avoid bricking. Intent by negligence. As I mentioned above, a concept more familiar in criminal law than consumer disputes, but still a pretty common concept.

(Oh, I thought I'd tack this on here due to various people's comments -- no, not yours, DeathChill. Although I am against unlocking for myself, I DO NOT THINK YOU HAVE COMMITTED SOME VENIAL SIN BY UNLOCKING YOUR IPHONE AND I AM NOT HAPPY THAT YOU MAY BE BRICKED OR FEATURE-FROZEN! I was chuffed that unlocking might be holding up my feature updates, but not to the point I'd wish you lose hundreds of dollars over it. Thank you. I think my approach would be to give unlockers a chance to come back to the fold. I'm sure Jobs and Apple considered this, but decided it was not harsh enough to put a big concrete lid on future unlocking. As you know, Jobs has a private jet. As you may not know, I do not have a private jet. From a purely business perspective, Jobs may be right on this one. Now I do have a rough opinion of some of the unlock developers who have every reason to have known better to unleash these things on a unsuspecting public.)

This is exactly what I was saying in the last thread. It appears if Apple is just patching the parts of the firmware rather then just reflashing it. The ONLY reasoning behind this that I can think of is so that it messes up unlocked iPhones as the previous firmware updates just reflashed the firmware.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is intentional. Maybe not intentional in the fact to brick phones, but intentional so that everyone is terrified to do any sort of hacking as they know Apple is addressing its updates specifically so that it will brick unlocked iPhones.

EDIT: As for saying that Apple rarely updates the baseband and hasn't yet, you're wrong. 1.0.1 updated the baseband.

 

[PDE]

The EU also sues companies for being successful.

That's a very mature, nuanced way at looking at. Read the article on EU regulation in the latest Economist to get a good feel for the fundamental philosophical difference between the EU and US in terms of regulation: the U.S. cost-benefit analysis vs the EU precautionary model in which the burden of proof is on the company to show that something is not dangerous or damaging. In the U.S., companies are always given the benefit of the doubt and can get away with murder (sometimes literally, as in the case with the security companies in Iraq) without consequences.

Thank goodness for the EU - with its huge population, it'll keep a check on the U.S. and force U.S. manufacturers to comply with basic regulations that ensure protection of consumers.

 

[georgeoommen]

George,

Those do sound like actual mobile phone laws in some Scandinavian countries. They are probably more or less accurate. Here's what I know about UK mobile phone unlocking laws:

You can legally lock a phone to a carrier for a contract term not to exceed 18 months. But, after six months of contract fulfillment by customer, carrier must at customer's request unlock said phone. But, more buts, they can charge a "reasonable" fee for the unlock, a "reasonable" fee I've heard can be as high as 50 or 60 quid, so reasonable maybe being not so cheap, reasonable to the carrier, not the customer. And, another but: But this unlocking does not terminate the contract at the time nor does it allow the customer to terminate the contract early; the customer must still fulfill the terms of the contract, that is paying on the contract for 12 more months or paying an early cancellation fee if there is such a provision for allowable early cancellation. Last but: But after six months of locked contract service, it would allow you if you say went to Spain for a couple weeks holiday, to pop in a local SIM and use a local, cheaper carrier without paying your UK carrier for international roaming.

Thanks Sanford, that was exactly the info i was looking for. I've been going through the OfCOM website as well and the info i found there is pretty much the same as what you say. I'm happy to tie myself down to one of the O2 contracts, probably the 45 quid one, but I have to be certain that I'm not forced to use international roaming for when i go abroad. Probably will wait out till early 2008 to see if O2/Apple are indeed going through with these "legal" unlocks before I get my iphone.

 

[3282872]

Sounds like a threat from Apple, I mean people buy the phone from Apple they have already paid, it's your property and there should be nothing wrong by how you decide how you want to use it.

Agreed. It's like buying a car but being told you can only drive it in certain states, and if you venture off into other states not listed as appropriate, we'll seize your engine.

Of course, there will be individuals caught up in "group think" who believe that by signing a contract you agree to terms and conditions on how to use a device that you paid full price. I find this antithetical to our individual rights as consumers. Europe has the right idea, they are looking out for the best interests of the company AND consumer by limiting how much power a company has in dictating lengths of contracts (if any) and deeming locked phones illegal (I'm not certain if that law applies to all countries in the European Union or just a few, so forgive my ignorance).

It seems the main complaint here isn't with Apple, but with the U.S. "free" market (and I use "free" loosely). As a consumer, I find it very sad that any company is allowed to dictate and control a device that is paid in full by the consumer, and thus owned by the consumer. I am hard pressed to think of any other device that is in a similar vein as the iPhone in those regards (and computers don't count there, any one can pretty much use their PC or Mac in any manner they see fit, outside of pirating software).

 

[3282872]

That's a very mature, nuanced way at looking at. Read the article on EU regulation in the latest Economist to get a good feel for the fundamental philosophical difference between the EU and US in terms of regulation: the U.S. cost-benefit analysis vs the EU precautionary model in which the burden of proof is on the company to show that something is not dangerous or damaging. In the U.S., companies are always given the benefit of the doubt and can get away with murder (sometimes literally, as in the case with the security companies in Iraq) without consequences.

Thank goodness for the EU - with its huge population, it'll keep a check on the U.S. and force U.S. manufacturers to comply with basic regulations that ensure protection of consumers.

Exactly. Enron any one? In the U.S., company's are given the "benefit of the doubt" over consumers, and many times consumers get screwed by the leeway corporations have in handling their products and services. At least it seems in the E.U., both the company AND the consumers are given near equal treatment; one isn't more important than the other and it would be very difficult for one to exist without the other.

The North American concept of locking phones and consumers to 1-2 year "agreements" with early cancellation fees (as if it costs that much for a company to terminate service) is ludicrous. I'm tired of us not questioning the business tactics of these corporations that don't truly have our best interests at heart (yes, I am aware that companies' objectives are to make money first and foremost, but it seems increasingly more at the price of the consumers' rights). Defending such tactics as "you knew what you were getting into when you signed that agreement" is erroneous, as we shouldn't have to be forced to sign any agreement with a product we pay full price to own. Discounted phones with contract/service are supposed to be an incentive for the consumer to sign with that carrier, thus anyone can go into an ATT, T-Mobile, Sprint, and/or Verizon store and buy a phone full price, sign NO contract and walk out. I've done it a few times. However, getting the phone at a lower price is possible by signing a binding service agreement, which means a guaranteed 12-24 month service contract and/or $175 early termination of services fee. I find that all this applies to the iPhone, a device that doesn't have a discounted service agreement, but instead is offered only at full price and only being locked into one specific US carrier, something that is antithetical to the U.S. "free market".

 

[Mackan]

Apple went the wrong way with the iPhone. It should have been sold unlocked, free of contracts. Why didn't they chose this road? Were they afraid that the iPhone was not strong enough, and needed support by bigger cellphone carriers to succeed? Is it pure greed? Now it is only exclusive to people prepared to sign a long term contract, in specific countries. Not to mention the lack of support for 3rd party applications. So many people that like the iPhone, but can't really have any joy with it. By locking themselves up to certain carriers, they are also forced to deal with these ridiculous things like intentionally bricking people's unlocked iPhones. Just trouble for you Apple, why don't you get it?

 

[DrV]

About European legislation

Would you have a source for this info? Not that I'm doubting its legitimacy, but I just want to know if such laws are in place in the UK as well and if so the exact details of it. There's most likely some clause in there that Apple will be able to exploit that allows them to continue with their current business model with respect to the iphone.

I really know nothing about the UK laws. The conditions I quoted are mainly from the Finnish Communications Market Act, paragraph 70, amendment 20.1.2007/26. (Sorry, I failed to find a decent English translation of that document.) As I said, the national legislation differs from one country to another, but the tendency is clear. Bundled sales are seen as an obstacle to free competition.

Actually, even the paragraph 70 is a new one, it was given in April 2006. The paragraph is temporary, i.e., if no new legislation is made, the legislation will revert to its previous form. Before April 2006 all bundled sales of GSM phones was banned. As the carriers kept saying that 3G will become more popular if the bundling is allowed, the ban was lifted temporarily for the 3G phones.

The sales of 3G phones skyrocketed immediately after the ban was lifted. However, that was only a transient phenomenon, as kids got nice phones their parents had previously refused to buy. The use and development of 3G services did not increase that much. Now the use of 3G (mainly for net access) has become more popular, but only because the data pricing is more reasonable (at the moment starting from 10 euros / mo. unlimited). So, it is not clear whether the current practice may continue in 2009. Possibly not.

The legislation seems to be watertight. Apple cannot enter our market without a 3G phone. With a 3G phone there will still be some problems (such as the pricing issue), but they may be possible to solve by some legal maneuvers.

Now, it might seem that it is quite insignificant whether Apple can enter some small markets up in the northern Europe. True, if you only look at the numbers. But if you look at the roots of GSM and the big mobile phone companies (Nokia, Ericsson), the picture changes somewhat.

There are very few signs that the European legislation would become less strict on competition issues. On the contrary, all market sectors are forced more and more open, be it telecommunications, software, or energy.

 

[elcid]

I can see it now. Apple "accidentally" breaking phones that are unlocked. People start balling because they knowingly compromised their phone but now its a brick. Apple issues another 100 gift card to those people to smooth things over.


All that aside, can anyone really believe that through all the lawyer mumbo-jumbo that AT&T did not tell apple that in accordance to the agreement that they have to do everything they can to stop unlocking of the iPhone?

 

[overcast]

Sounds like a threat from Apple, I mean people buy the phone from Apple they have already paid, it's your property and there should be nothing wrong by how you decide how you want to use it.

You DO NOT own the software on the iPhone. The ONLY thing you own is the material that the phone is made from. THAT'S IT. You are totally free to do whatever you want to the phone, go nuts. You aren't going to be tracked down by the FBI and arrested. However, if you expect Apple to support what you are doing and guarantee that their firmware works with your hacked iphone, then you've lost your marbles. You accepted an agreement purchasing the phone, this is what is REQUIRED for Apple to support you in their software updates.

Do you understand the difference now?

 

[BlackMR2]

ok so if the phone does get bricked by the update.... i'm assuming that the itunes features like music playback, video playback, web browsing, camera functions etc will still work but you just won't e able to make calls?

Well my 8gb iphone is on it's way here next Wednesday (down in OZ) maybe i'll just glue my sony ericson to the back of it in case it stops making calls

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

Apple has generally been fairly closed as a company, but this year they seem to have gone off the deep end. The computer company whose products I've enjoyed for quite some time is changing. By purposefully bricking any phone which has been hacked (and yes it's on purpose I'm sure), they are showing the direction they are headed. I don't want my MBP to be the last mac I have, but if they continue in this direction I'll have to move elsewhere.

 

[Compile 'em all]

ok so if the phone does get bricked by the update.... i'm assuming that the itunes features like music playback, video playback, web browsing, camera functions etc will still work but you just won't e able to make calls?

Well my 8gb iphone is on it's way here next Wednesday (down in OZ) maybe i'll just glue my sony ericson to the back of it in case it stops making calls

Bricked means it will not boot at all. Ain't gonna happen, so cheer up .

 

[overcast]

ok so if the phone does get bricked by the update.... i'm assuming that the itunes features like music playback, video playback, web browsing, camera functions etc will still work but you just won't e able to make calls?

Well my 8gb iphone is on it's way here next Wednesday (down in OZ) maybe i'll just glue my sony ericson to the back of it in case it stops making calls

I don't think you understand when something like the BIOS of a computer gets corrupted. A "feature" just doesn't stop working, while the rest goes on happily.

 

[123]

I would rather have an operational iPhone that can be updated to 1.1.1 and wait for whatever new version of iNdependence that comes out that allows spoof activation in 1.1.1. It's constant roulette, even so, the next update may hose your iPhone. At least until my Verizon plan expires this December, knowing the 411 on 1.1.1 is crucial to me.

Currently, the iPhone is hacked and we have complete control over the software on the device. It is much easier to hack the 1.1.1 update and apply it to an unlocked (or otherwise altered) phone than to hack an updated phone again as the latter requires new security holes to be found in every area to hack it again (assuming all known are patched).

 

[sanford]

Thanks Sanford, that was exactly the info i was looking for. I've been going through the OfCOM website as well and the info i found there is pretty much the same as what you say. I'm happy to tie myself down to one of the O2 contracts, probably the 45 quid one, but I have to be certain that I'm not forced to use international roaming for when i go abroad. Probably will wait out till early 2008 to see if O2/Apple are indeed going through with these "legal" unlocks before I get my iphone.

I can't imagine how they'd get around it without running seriously afoul of UK law. Only thing I can think of is making the "reasonable" fee to unlock at six months around 400 quid. And the UK agency responsible for enforcing the unlocking regulations letting them do that. What you could do, so that you could get one earlier, is call O2 now or closer to actual on-sale date, tell them you plan on signing up on an O2 tariff for iPhone and keeping it at least through the 18-month contract period, and then ask them if they have established what the six-months unlocking fee will be for your iPhone. If they don't know by Nov. 9th, or refuse to say or discuss the fact they are required by UK law to unlock at six months, then I'd probably be skeptical and wait until the first customers hit six months and see how they're legal unlocking goes.

 

[sanford]

Currently, the iPhone is hacked and we have complete control over the software on the device. It is much easier to hack the 1.1.1 update and apply it to an unlocked (or otherwise altered) phone than to hack an updated phone again as the latter requires new security holes to be found in every area to hack it again (assuming all known are patched).

Oh and good luck with that. Mucking about in the firmware binary itself and the applying it to any iPhone sounds as brick-making as anything else.

My advice, not that anyone will listen. If you are a tinkerer who has bought or will buy multiple iPhones to keep tinkering with them, and you can afford this, you know, do whatever you want, just don't drag casual consumer-style customers down with you by releasing into the wild things they don't understand that might permanently brick their phones (no, typing "use at your own risk" a readme.txt file is not sufficient). If you've already unlocked and are technically proficient and think you can figure this out, do whatever. If you're a regular, average customer who has unlocked, hold off a long, long time on updating until the situation is known. Then if I were you, if a verified, time-tested relock is made available from somewhere that will save your phone and future problems like this, relock and sign up with AT&T. If you're a regular, average customer who has yet to unlock, or you're going to buy and then immediately unlock, for God's sake don't. It is just not worth the hassle or expense to you. If you can afford to keep buying multiple iPhones after you keep bricking them, you can probably afford dealing with AT&T's rates and optional international roaming plan rates.

 

[pjh]

My advice, not that anyone will listen. If you are a tinkerer who has bought or will buy multiple iPhones to keep tinkering with them, and you can afford this, you know, do whatever you want, just don't drag casual consumer-style customers down with you by releasing into the wild things they don't understand that might permanently brick their phones (no, typing "use at your own risk" a readme.txt file is not sufficient). If you've already unlocked and are technically proficient and think you can figure this out, do whatever. If you're a regular, average customer who has unlocked, hold off a long, long time on updating until the situation is known. Then if I were you, if a verified, time-tested relock is made available from somewhere that will save your phone and future problems like this, relock and sign up with AT&T. If you're a regular, average customer who has yet to unlock, or you're going to buy and then immediately unlock, for God's sake don't. It is just not worth the hassle or expense to you. If you can afford to keep buying multiple iPhones after you keep bricking them, you can probably afford dealing with AT&T's rates and optional international roaming plan rates.

Very good advice, but you're right. No one will listen and the net will be full of people screaming like hysterical 12 year old girls

 

[hiitzDENNIS]

Can I still unlock it on att without a data plan will that work?

 

[hayesk]

p.s. if microsoft came up with a phone zune and you unlocked it to use whatever carrier you wanted, do you really think gates or whoever would go out and say, "by the way, you might want to restore your icrapcoloredphonezune back to factory settings because we're about to release an update that might render it as useful as a brick."

Uhm, if MS was getting revenue from AT&T, they would absolutely say that. After all, this is the company whose activation software locked out their own legitimate Windows customers.