iPhone Update May Damage Unlocked Phones -- But Will It Also Damage Apple?
from the be-careful-with-that dept
Apple has warned iPhone customers who have used third-party iPhone-unlocking software that installing an upcoming firmware update could render their phones "permanently inoperable." This has generated a lot of outrage on Slashdot, with some commenters faulting Apple for trying to lock consumers into a contract with AT&T, while others suggest that this might be an unavoidable consequence of making unauthorized modifications to the device. It's hard to justify being too upset at Apple here. Reports indicate that the company isn't trying to damage peoples' iPhones on purpose, it just hasn't tested the update with all of the unlocking programs folks are using. Given that Apple has said from the outset that such hacks are unsupported and strongly discouraged, Apple is entirely within its rights to blame the customer if the combination of user modifications and an Apple firmware update break their phones.But even if Apple is within their legal rights, releasing a firmware update that they know will break some phones is a terrible business strategy. It's never a good idea to anger your customers, and it certainly wouldn't be difficult for Apple to add a function to the firmware updater that checks the phone for unlocking software and warns the customer if a potential problem is detected. Users might still be annoyed at being unable to get the latest firmware, but that's better than silently turning their phone into a paperweight. More generally, Apple shouldn't underestimate the value of the unlockers to the iPhone product ecosystem. Those sorts of tech-savvy early adopters are the most likely to develop new and innovative uses for the product, thereby increasing its value for all customers. For example, podcasting has surely made the iPod more valuable; it was invented by tech hobbyists and only later integrated by Apple into iTunes. And if Apple plays hardball with phone-unlockers, that's not likely to enhance their bottom line. More likely, they'll most likely just persuade people who like tinkering with their gadgets to buy their next cell phone from another company.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hackers, iphone, unlocking, updates
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pricing
I am a huge proponent of the open source communitty, but without Apple making a profit we do not get the incredibly awesome products they have rolled out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pricing
I don't know for sure, but I don't believe that the iphones were subsidized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pricing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to lessen it's value significantly to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone knew going in that the iPhone was locked to AT&T and that unlocking it might have consequences. If being locked to AT&T lessened the value to these people, it apparently wasn't enough to stop them from buying the phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It smells
I can tell you this cast apple in such a bad light, I was seriously considering switching from Windows to a Mac, because all the DRM in Vista is just wrong, but now....the devil you know is better than the one you don't.
My message to APPLE folks who are reading this... one Microsoft is enough, you will not beat M$ by emulating their most unpopular tactics. Don't squander your user base's good will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It smells
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasn't the iPhone unsubsidized to begin with? Are the carriers explicitly not allowed to subsidize the price (since Apple fears it would canabolize their iPod sales)? The big selling point from Apple to carriers is that they carry no risk by selling the iPhone as opposed to handsets from other manufactures which are subsidized. This was known from the outset. What Apple is really trying to do is protect their revenue stream from their revenue sharing agreements with the carriers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to iBrick
There, I feel better now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple is more equal tha Microsoft?
Where si the freakin` justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm ...
The reality is probably closer to the fact that Jobs & Co. have to at least give the appearance of trying to remain within their contract with AT&T - lest they get hit with a fat daddy of a lawsuit.
the contract with AT&T (love it or hate it) says they will build iPhones for x time period that will be released only for AT&T network (they also get a kickback for every new AT&T subscriber btw ...) I also personally hope that x time period expires very soon. judging Jobs by his marketing savvy, I wager it won't be *too* much longer before open iPhones come out.
I think this may be - well, let me re-phrase - I *hope* this is nothing more than saber rattling by Apple to appease the more bloodthirsty of AT&T's lawyers who may be looking for a reason ...
sort of a cya by Apple to at least give the appearance of due diligence in standing by the terms of their contract with AT&T is my guess.
in the long run, it won't really matter anyway, as iPhoneDev will simply hack it again and fix the break or break the fix or whatever and Jobs gets his way anyway. (i.e. more iPhones sold and in use no matter the network.)
this may have been in the cards all along - I doubt any of this comes as a surprise to Apple - so it'll be interesting to see what happens with the firmware update ...
PS - and in an off-topic this shows one of the reasons for open access to the networks (ala Google's idea re: the 700MHz spectrum sale - which I now hear Apple may bid on ?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree with the post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You may own the cellphone hardware but you only license the software. The true owners, AT&T and Apple, have every right to update their property without consideration to your unauthorized modifications.
You hack it, suck it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple from the beginning said this would be a closed system. This way they would presumibly not run into the problems Microsoft has, whereby every release, patch, or upgrade causes problems with someones system.
They should at least offer a way for a person to NOT upgrade the phone. The hacker takes it as he made it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suck it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do any of the jackasses fomenting this panic and FUD understand what a warranty is? That if they modify in a fundamental way the operating system or physical parameters of a closed device that they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves? Apple will update the iPhone's software as required and as they see fit, and said updates will operate on the assumption of unmolested hardware and software. You screw with that, and an Apple update breaks your iPhone, you are fucked. And Apple has absolutely nothing to answer for if that does indeed occur. Any other interpretation is complete and utter garbage, and with most of the garbage on the web concerning Apple these days, it's faux outrage generated and propagated by asshats still pissed that Apple survived into this Millennium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple sucks!
Just kidding Mr Jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The post is wrong
The best way for people to teach Apple a lesson, about getting in bed w/AT&T on a 2yr dumbass contract, is by NOT buying the thing. Let it die on the vine then maybe they'll get a clue.
If you already bought it, and you unlocked it, and it breaks.. well, sucks to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um What?
Are the implying that non-hack iphones *need* firmware updates to continue to function? I would think any reasonable person would find that unacceptable.
I have a ipod, never performed a firmware update, still works. I would hope, being reasonable, that the same would hold true of any product I own. Unless, I'm looking to add functionality or resolve a defect, I see no reason to perform a firmware update. Firmware updates are risky to being with, and it provides a means to reduce functionality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and it makes fresh juices, too!
I waited and bought a 16gb iPod Touch. It is as close to the god-head as an inanimate object can become. I spend nights sacrificing sheep to it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is too bad Apple squandered a lot of the goodwill they had accumulated with great products like the iPod and iPhone. Worse, it appears to be just a snit on their part to teach unlockers a lesson. Let's hope Apple is the one who learned an important lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the other side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wouldn't it be nice if apple would just open the iphone to all cellphone carriers and use the same contract they have with at&t to get a certain percentage of shares? and the only competition with such carriers is who would subsidize the price of the iphone the most. wouldn't it be such a great deal for us and for apple who would be able to sell their phones who doesn't like at&t? and at the same time increasing the iphone sales in the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email address : leadtech_sales@live.com
Apple iphone 3G 16GB -----$370
Apple iphone 3g 8gb--------$300
NOKIA N86.......................$450
NOKIA N97........................$400
SONY ERICSSON XPERIA X1.......$450USD
AND MANY MORE…………
Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 SPECS:
2G Network GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900
3G Network HSDPA 850 / 1900 / 2100 / 1700
Dimensions 110 x 53 x 16.7 mm
Display Type TFT touchscreen, 65K colors
GPRS Class 10 (4+1/3+2 slots), 32 - 48 kbps
Camera 3.15 MP, 2048x1536 pixels
Size 800 x 480 pixels, 3 inches
WLAN Wi-Fi 802.11b/g
- Full QWERTY keyboard
- Optical joystick navigation
Card slot microSD (TransFlash)
- 400 MB internal memory
- 128MB RAM, 256MB storage memory
- Qualcomm MSM7200 528MHz processor
Battery Standard battery, Li-Po, 1500 mAh
WE MAKE SHIPPMENT VIA UPS OR FEDEX EXPRESS OR DHL EXPRESS IN 2 DAYS AFTER CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT..
Email address : leadtech_sales@live.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cellphone repair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]