Apple iPhone

[stdPikachu]

Has any phone manufacturer threatened to bork an unofficially unlocked phone before?

I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't intentionally bricking phones be illegal? IIRC you haven't signed any contract saying you'll use Carrier X exclusively until you actually sign up with them...?

 

[editor]

I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't intentionally bricking phones be illegal? IIRC you haven't signed any contract saying you'll use Carrier X exclusively until you actually sign up with them...?

I'd imagine that Apple would argue that their software update just happens to break dodgily unlocked iPhones and as such it's not their fault.

 

[stdPikachu]

I'd imagine that Apple would argue that their software update just happens to break dodgily unlocked iPhones and as such it's not their fault.

It'd be interesting to see that stand up to technical analysis. Can anyone here shed any light on how mobile phones are "locked" and what software components must be haXx0r3d to disable the locks?

 

[editor]

It'd be interesting to see that stand up to technical analysis. Can anyone here shed any light on how mobile phones are "locked" and what software components must be haXx0r3d to disable the locks?

Unless they've sneaked in some hardware nastiness, I'd imagine that whatever software borking technique they've employed could be undone by hackers sooner or later.

But I really don't recall any other phone manufacturer threatening to trash unlocked phones in this manner. If they're successful, they're going to really piss off a lot of Apple customers.

 

[Kanda]

I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't intentionally bricking phones be illegal? IIRC you haven't signed any contract saying you'll use Carrier X exclusively until you actually sign up with them...?

Dunno if intentionally or not but you've been able to brick a PSP for years if you fuck about with the ROM's.

 

[stdPikachu]

Dunno if intentionally or not but you've been able to brick a PSP for years if you fuck about with the ROM's.

The difference is that if you wiggle your PSP firmware, when your day comes in court people are only going to say "M'lud, prosecution is a dirty stinkin' pirate who wanted to play teh pirate movies and gamewarezes", whereas I can't see any such concerns arriving from "I wanted my new phone to work with my current contract".

Hopefully the bricking issue will just be bluster to scare people from doing it. Conversely, there's plenty of tech savvy consumers who'll refuse to buy a restricted device that comes advertised as having Apple's thumb over the self-destruct button.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I don't really think it's a big deal tbh, any time you chip, unlock, etc your device you've taking a risk.

 

[DJ Bigga]

I don't really think it's a big deal tbh, any time you chip, unlock, etc your device you've taking a risk.

Yup

 

[jæd]

I don't really think it's a big deal tbh, any time you chip, unlock, etc your device you've taking a risk.

Well... Unlocking a phone lets you use it as it intended, just on a different network. Chippping a device it mostly to run warez on it...

 

[editor]

I don't really think it's a big deal tbh, any time you chip, unlock, etc your device you've taking a risk.

Really? I mean, there's always a small risk, but I've never heard of a phone manufacturer implicitly suggesting that their next update will fuck up your phone for ever.

It sounds to some folks on that they're going out of their way to punish Apple fans who have paid the company good money for their phone but want to use it on a different network (read the frothing comments on Engadget!).

Edit to add: it might be interesting to see how all this goes down in the EU.

 

[Sunray]

I got a new SIM when I got a 3G phone, I'm wondering if this is different to the old 2G SIM? If it is, I couldn't get an iPhone without a massive amount of messing about getting another SIM or use it on PAYG.

 

[Xanadu]

Oh don't ask me because I'll only bang on about the Palm Treo phones. I love 'em!

They're not without their limitations mind - in particular no wi-fi and a pretty duff camera - but it's got a bright 320x320 screen, a proper keyboard (yes!), there's tons and tons and tons of software available and can do just about anything I ask of it.

There's a new Palm OS Treo expected out soonish and if it's anywhere near as good as the Windows version I just reviewed, I'm buying it!

I thought the screen was 240x240. Which models are 320x320?

 

[jæd]

It sounds to some folks on that they're going out of their way to punish Apple fans who have paid the company good money for their phone but want to use it on a different network (read the frothing comments on Engadget!).

But all the comments on Engadget are frothing...

Edit to add: it might be interesting to see how all this goes down in the EU.

Yep.... I'm fine with Apple saying that 3rd-party hacks are "dangerous" as long as they bring out a Apple-blessed method of doing it. Which they might well have to in the EU.

So its all another latte storm session...

 

[editor]

I thought the screen was 240x240. Which models are 320x320?

The Palm Treo 650/680/700p/755p are all 320 x 320.
The new Windows Treo 500v is 320 x 240.
The Windows 750v was 240x240.
The new PalmOS Centro is also expected to be 320x320.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Really? I mean, there's always a small risk, but I've never heard of a phone manufacturer implicitly suggesting that their next update will fuck up your phone for ever.

It sounds to some folks on that they're going out of their way to punish Apple fans who have paid the company good money for their phone but want to use it on a different network (read the frothing comments on Engadget!).

Edit to add: it might be interesting to see how all this goes down in the EU.

In this day and age with updating only the naive would not realise the risk. I don't mean to come off sounding pro corporate on this, I'm not. Just saying that it's no real surprise...

 

[UnderOpenSky]

seems a bit daft, your still having to fork out for the phone and the contract. What happens if you live somewhere with dodgy reception and like to have a spare sim for emergancies.

 

[stdPikachu]

In this day and age with updating only the naive would not realise the risk.

Unacceptable for a consumer device IMHO.

At the very worst, a firmware update should do nothing more than overwrite the "unlocked" firmware and the phone will revert back to "locked" behaviour. The fact that there are rumours abound that the firmware will be actively crippled if it detects the phone has been unlocked smacks of a blatant anti-consumer attitude.

 

[editor]

At the very worst, a firmware update should do nothing more than overwrite the "unlocked" firmware and the phone will revert back to "locked" behaviour. The fact that there are rumours abound that the firmware will be actively crippled if it detects the phone has been unlocked smacks of a blatant anti-consumer attitude.

Yup. I've no problem with Apple's updates overwriting any installed dodgy hacks, but if - as implied in their press release - their updates actively seek to 'punish' users by turning their expensive phone into a useless brick, then that's a step too far in my book.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Unacceptable for a consumer device IMHO.

At the very worst, a firmware update should do nothing more than overwrite the "unlocked" firmware and the phone will revert back to "locked" behaviour. The fact that there are rumours abound that the firmware will be actively crippled if it detects the phone has been unlocked smacks of a blatant anti-consumer attitude.

Unacceptable only if you're one of the few willing to unlock; I reckon the vast majority of users wont be affected by this at all. Like I say it's no surprise at all.

 

[editor]

Unacceptable only if you're one of the few willing to unlock; I reckon the vast majority of users wont be affected by this at all.l.

So you think it's a reasonable and acceptable business practice that consumers should just accept then?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

So you think it's a reasonable and acceptable business practice that consumers should just accept then?

I think you get what you pay for. You buy Apple this is what you get, you buy Palm you get something else. That's how the market works right?

 

[jæd]

Unless they've sneaked in some hardware nastiness, I'd imagine that whatever software borking technique they've employed could be undone by hackers sooner or later.

But I really don't recall any other phone manufacturer threatening to trash unlocked phones in this manner. If they're successful, they're going to really piss off a lot of Apple customers.

But they aren't.... They're just saying "Don't use 3rd-party tools because the phone could be borked due to a firmware update in future"... Seems like fairly predictable arse-covering by Apple...

 

[Xanadu]

The Palm Treo 650/680/700p/755p are all 320 x 320.
The new Windows Treo 500v is 320 x 240.
The Windows 750v was 240x240.
The new PalmOS Centro is also expected to be 320x320.

Interesting...

 

[editor]

But they aren't.... They're just saying "Don't use 3rd-party tools because the phone could be borked due to a firmware update in future"... Seems like fairly predictable arse-covering by Apple...

You're missing the point. Many suspect that the "irreparable damage" is being intentionally created by Apple and is not an inevitable side effect of the unlocking (after all, no other phone manufacturer has issued such dire warnings about upgrades, AFAIK)

The company said in a statement on Monday that it has found "irreparable damage" caused to the phone's software by many of the unlocking tools currently available.

When new updates are installed, the iPhone could be rendered "permanently inoperable".

The iPhone will also be unfixable, as the company pointed out that unlocking the iPhone is a violation of the licensing agreement and voids the warranty.
Previous updates have told users with modified iPhones that the device was damaged and needed to be reformatted. An Apple spokesperson told vnunet.com that this update will render even that option unusable.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2199379/apple-issues-dire-warning

 

[editor]

I think you get what you pay for. You buy Apple this is what you get, you buy Palm you get something else. That's how the market works right?

You haven't actually answered my question.

 

[Crispy]

You haven't actually answered my question.

In this day and age with updating only the naive would not realise the risk. I don't mean to come off sounding pro corporate on this, I'm not. Just saying that it's no real surprise...

he did earlier

 

[stdPikachu]

Unacceptable only if you're one of the few willing to unlock

Sorry, I see it as my right to have MY phone run on whatever carrier I decide. Locking it to a single carrier does no favours for the customer. It's purely a money making exercise on Apple's part. I'd have no problem with them if they came clean about it.

So you think it's a reasonable and acceptable business practice that consumers should just accept then?

Hah! I've already been flamed about other protestations on this. I've even seen people say that this enforced bricking is good because it'll produce a cat'n'mouse race between Apple and the hackers - the hackers will keep getting bricked phones, and the "legitimate" users will keep getting better and better firmware. Apple are even raising the chocolate ration to twenty-five grammes a week!

The iPhone is a nice bit of kit. It has some funky new things and some genuinely innovative ideas. But it comes with such onerous terms of use I fail to see how anyone can sit there and say "well yes, actually, that is for my own protection".

But they aren't.... They're just saying "Don't use 3rd-party tools because the phone could be borked due to a firmware update in future"... Seems like fairly predictable arse-covering by Apple...

The arse-covering warnings are usually printed in 6pt font at the bottom of an incomperhensible morass of legalese. The fact that Apple are making a big song and dance about it is proof, IMHO, that they're deliberately trying to scare people out of unlocking their phones.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Sorry, I see it as my right to have MY phone run on whatever carrier I decide. Locking it to a single carrier does no favours for the customer. It's purely a money making exercise on Apple's part. I'd have no problem with them if they came clean about it.

Sure, fair point you see it as your right, Apple sees this as their right and given they're a multi billion dollar corporation that gets to draw up whatever warranty agreement they want you can see who wins out.

Tbh the annoyance of this is telling, would anyone bat an eyelid if Microsoft or Sony did this? Why should Apple be treated differently?

 

[editor]

he did earlier

No he didn't.

He just keep telling me how he's "not surprised" by the decision, but that's not what I was asking him.

I was asking whether he think it is a "reasonable and acceptable business practice that consumers should just accept."

 

[tarannau]

You've got to be a geeky numpty to try and unlock the iphone at the moment to be fair. Even if you did succeed, it's something of a pyrrhic victory - some of the features (Eg EDGE, Visual/Ordered voicemail) are network dependent and other issues have popped on unlocked iphones - Google Maps/You Tube stop working for example.

Apple's warning is a bit crap mind, clumsy and worded to sound perhaps more theatening that the likely reality. It's one of those 'we take no responsibility whatsoever - play around all you like...just don't expect it to work' arse-covering legal get-outs.