Unlocked iPhones (Temporarily?) iBricked
from the and-so-it-goes dept
As Apple warned earlier this week, the latest firmware update did, in fact, "break" unlocked iPhones and kill unofficial 3rd party iPhone apps. It's still not clear how intentional this was, but it still seems like something that Apple should have made at least a little more of an effort to avoid. The folks who unlocked their iPhones and who were installing 3rd party apps were the early adopters who were most likely to go out and evangelize the device -- especially if it was more useful thanks to alternative networks and better applications. Over at Gizmodo, they have a good post discussing what's actually happening, with two important points: the update is not doing any permanent damage to the phone (meaning that it'll probably be a short while until software hacks are developed to bring bricked iPhones back to life) and that Apple could have pretty easily avoided messing up the phones (suggesting that perhaps it was at least somewhat intentional).
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You keep saying things like it's advantageous for companies like apple to support unlocked devices and dump DRM, but clear that's not the case; it would be hard to beat Apple's expertise on exactly who does what with their devices how much objection there is to lock-in, and how much money Apple would make or loose by unlocking so if Apple think it's worthwhile maintaining the lock that seems pretty much definitive (certainly it's more convincing than a techdirt opinion).
In any case Apple have taken care to maintain control so that if they need to "unbrick" some devices they can, probably with typical Apple spin about how much they look after their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that it probably was intentional, and I would go one step farther and guess that it was AT&T’s idea. Apple made an exclusive contract with AT&T to sell the iPhone only with them. They are going to have to live with it, and adjust to the fact that they are going to lose customers and have to appease AT&T at every turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apple can do whatever they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Must have known
Surely this would just limit who would want to buy the phone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They Must have known
Also note that the number of people doing these kinds of hacks are pretty close to statistically irrelevant to Apple. The majority of users are abiding the terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? How much effort was made that just a little bit more would have been sufficient. I hadn't realized that Apple made anyone privy to this sort of information. How was it that you became aware of their level of effort?
"The folks who unlocked their iPhones and who were installing 3rd party apps were the early adopters who were most likely to go out and evangelize the device -- especially if it was more useful thanks to alternative networks and better applications."
So the 1 million iPhones sold in 74 days were all unlocked? Or is 74 days not considered an early adopter? 30 days perhaps?
"that Apple could have pretty easily avoided messing up the phones (suggesting that perhaps it was at least somewhat intentional)."
Hysterical commenters can probably get away with accusing Apple of intentionally causing damage. Techdirt? Not so much.
If blogs want to be consider 'new media', maybe they shouldn't report opinion as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emergency calls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Emergency calls
You may have a point though that if Apple stuffed emergency calls they might then be obliged to provide an unbricking update, whereas if emergency calls are left functional they can please themselves about any unbricking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Emergency calls
The device has been tampered with. Warranty is voided. Apple is no longer responsible for it's functionality or lack thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Emergency calls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Emergency calls
The update to your broken device made it completely inoperable, even for 911.
It would not be Apple's responsibility to fix it in any way shape or form.
Pretty simple logic there, my friend. Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Emergency calls
If you mod' your phone and it can still make emergency calls, then Apple were to mod' it and screw that up, they have gratuitously damaging public saftey (regardless what else they do) so they have some obligation to fix.
Nothing to do with warranty my friend. Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Emergency calls
Care to test that in court? It's nice that you believe it, but that does not in any way effect the reality of the situation.
Just as Apple is not responsible for fixing it if you drop it or run it over, they are not responsible if you knowingly and purposefully alter the system to something their updates are not compatible with. Plain and simple. Sorry if that's too hard for you to comprehend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Chuck.
This is a commentary blog, not a news blog. It is, therefore, based on the author's opinion or insight into a topic, not news about said topic.
I hope this helps. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
apple is a greedy son of a bitch just like microsoft is. they just hide it a lot more and they convince their customers that they like being taken from behind and want to do it again. thats the only difference between apple & microsoft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And just to be clear, I think Apple makes some great products, and has excellent marketing strategies. I just don't agree with the concept of businesses telling consumers how they can and can't use the products they buy. That is not fair to the consumer at all. The iPhone may be revolutionary in some ways, but unless Jobs gets his head on straight and allows apps to be developed and installed and the phone to be used on any network, it will never corner the smart phone market, ever. The strategy might have worked with the iPods, but it won't pan out in the cell phone market. There's too much it can't do that other, much cheaper phones have always been able to do. If the iPhone would cost $100 and work on Alltel, I might at least look at one in the store, but I am NEVER switching to AT&T and will NEVER spend that much money on a cell phone. A $40 cell phone will still let you talk to people, and I have much more important things to spend my money on, like gas and groceries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All that money to deal with all that hassle, sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Apple
PS - Every computing thing I have is 'windows', nothing Apple, and I don't own a cell phone because I don't need the interruptions, annoyances or expenses involved. I just think Apple is predominately right in this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iPhone
One other side note.... Why is it that we, the public, allow companies to tell us what is best for us? Why don't WE demand that all cell phones work on ALL networks? After all, would that not be better for US, the Public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iPhone
Apparently because most folks in the US couldn't care less. If the demand was there, the market would meet it. The folks whining and complaining about lock-in may be vocal, but their numbers are insignificant compared to the size of the market as a whole.
If you want an iPhone, but not the lock-in, import a MiniOne when it's released (hopefully by Xmas). I'll be getting one. They are faster, more functional, unlocked, etc... The only things missing are the multi-touch zoom and the vendor lock in. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iPhone
I think it would be great to have the freedom to pick and choose phone and network. I just don't see a way there from where we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iPhone
Hey buddy guess what.. you don't HAVE TO BUY A CELL PHONE; NO ONE PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD. It isn't a natural born right that you have a cell phone (or that is open source or open to any network you want). Don't buy products from the company if you don't like what they offer. Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHAHA!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intentional ?
Nothing to see here. move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intentional ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iPhone Hacking
This sounds right to me. Apple created the device, and I see no reason for them to support it any way that they see fit. You have to realize that being a techie and hacking your phone really makes you the minority. Most people just go about things the way they were designed and Apple has a duty to support the majority.
You have to also keep in mind that Apple is in bed with AT&T for the next 5 years...consider this like taking your girlfriend's side in an debate she's having with someone at work. You have to take her side because it's your girlfriend.
PS: I have an iPhone. It was hacked. The hacked phone seemed buggy to me, not nearly as responsive. So, I restored it prior to the update.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for why you can't have cell phones that work on ALL networks, that's impossible. The very thing that drives our technology, free enterprise, causes company competition and the motivation to continuously innovate. There will be times that each network has its own technology that they use to try to get ahead. Look at sprint, granted you can only use Sprint phones because its not GSM but it's also the fastest network out there for data. So your suggestion is not possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if you don't like it so much,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the apple way
I like Macs I use Macs I will ever buy anything apple again. So I will leave the Mac world at the will of my employers. Most businesses reward loyal clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Policy
Traditionally Apple has always had a closed system and designed everything to to work with a closed set of hardware and software. Did you think that would change over night? Microsoft had taken the road to make a agile OS that would hand nearlly all hardware and tries to resolve bad software - and you can see where policy has lead them.
With a closed system you have more control to make a more stable product. Apple said it would do upgrade but would NOT concern itself with unofficial 3rd party applications. They have always done this to maintain the best stability for their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In terms of the update, there has been some speculation and some semi-confirmed reports that the pseudo brick is caused by Apple changing the IMEI number to phones that have been unlocked. If that turns out to be true, then it was obviously intentional, and there is a LOT Apple should have done to avoid it. No matter what anyone says, software development isn't as complicated as the "Apple could not account for every change" apologists. They did not have to account for every hack or unlock, they just needed to do a simple checksum to the software and see if it's been unlocked, and not apply the update if it causes problems. They are obviously doing the checksum anyway, since they are only changing IMEI numbers on unlocked devices, they have the functionality in there, they just used it in a bad way. A way that eliminates our choice as consumers of how to use the devices we OWN. Even if you don't think Apple is wrong in their decision you should not defend their actions on the principal of consumer choice. What they are doing is stopping innovation and causing a roadblock in the "revolutionizing" of the mobile market. Beyond that, Apple has been pushed forward by 3rd part apps for years. Many of the great features people love now were once 3rd party apps developed by independent developers. Dashboard was Konfabulator, CoverFlow was originally a 3rd party plugin developed by SteelSkies. These products are now cornerstones in Apple's products, if it weren't for 3rd party developers, Apple would be no different than MS in terms of usability and "cool" factor.
Love them or hate them, what Apple is doing is actually BAD for the market and innovation, not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
apples' mistake was marketing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: It's a phone
It's defining ownership. Yeah, for this argument it's just a phone, but if they can get away with it, everyone else will try the same. And soon enough it will be with something that matters to you, then I don't want to hear you bitch about it, cause you could have saw it coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just unlocked phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loopholes
All of the unlocking and "jailbreaking" systems rely on exploiting security loopholes in the OS. Now, do you really expect Apple to continue to leave those loopholes open for just anyone to exploit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Loopholes
Who cares? We still shouldn't stand by and allow it to happen. We should be working towards more consumer choice, freedom and innovation, and not away from it.
We know Apple isn't doing blatant illegal things, what they are doing is just bad for the consumer market, and only good for profit. We should be aiming for more freedom on our end and more responsibility on that of the corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wealth of Ignorance
If what previous posters stated is true; "Emergency Calls still work if bricked". Then how can you possible flap that it wasn't intentional. Let me walk your feeble asses thru this, they intentionally made sure that their firmware updates would not affect emergency call functionality, they could do the same for additionally functionality, or just avoid the issue entirely by; NOT applying firmware updates without user permission. I know this concept require a bit of abstract though but come on, you can't be that obtuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not surprised
if your argument is that apple could get more customers by offering more of an open source product with 3rd party apps available and supported, and even options on service providers... sure, maybe they could. but they don't and they have every right not to, just like you have every right to choose your phone and service based upon the features provided.
look to google to create more of a product like the one so many hacked iphone users are desiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlocking is legal
Apple is breaking the law by trashing unlocked phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]