Print 75 comment(s) - last by Wightout.. on Oct 2 at 4:55 PM

Apple's latest iPhone moves may have earned it a new class-action law suit--Apple's answer: purchase a new iPhone.

As reported on DailyTech, Apple Inc. disabled unlocked iPhones with its Firmware 1.1.1 update by putting them into activation limbo.  The unlocked phones could not make any calls until activated with a valid AT&T card and iTunes.  Even then, the phones would sometimes still be locked, according to preliminary reports.  Apple covered its bases, by providing a "slide for emergency" option which allows users to make 911 calls on their newly-bricked iPhone.

While many users simply are not going to install the update or are hoping for a cracked version of the patch to be released, some are seeking legal avenues to fight Apple's strike on the modding/hacking/homebrew community.

On Saturday, posts by user myndex appeared in Apple's iPhone Forums, proposing three groupings of users who could seek legal action and calling for users whose iPhones were rendered inoperable to contact the poster with answers to a list of questions detailing their iPhone situation.

The posts were taken down relatively quickly, but screenshots were posted here [1][2].  Additionally, a quick search reveals that Myndex is a tech and research group that appears to use Macintosh computers.  Whether the owner of the Apple forums handle is associated with this group is unknown.

Apple has protected itself by including a large amount of legal phrasing in its packaging, instruction manuals, and online materials, warning users against unlocking their iPhones, which they say violates their contract.

Noah Funderburg, an assistant dean at the University of Alabama School of Law, was quoted as saying. "Anyone who hacks must know that they are taking certain risks," Funderburg told the paper. "If they aren’t willing to assume the risks upfront--like a brick iPhone--then maybe they should not hack the device."

Jennifer Bowcock, an Apple spokeswoman indicated that Apple was unapologetic about the situation. "The inability to use your phone after making unauthorized modifications isn’t covered under the iPhone warranty. If the damage was due to use of an unauthorized software application, voiding their warranty, they should purchase a new iPhone,” said Bowcock

In some cases Apple appears to have not only killed unlockers, but those who simply were participating in the homebrew/3rd-party applications community.  Ross Good, a student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign had not expected to be affected as he had only installed a couple of seemingly harmless third party applications, including one for instant messaging.  After updating, he found his phone returned to the activation screen and would not activate, though he had a valid AT&T contract.  His phone is now among the growing number of phones "bricked" by the update.

No word was received from Apple on what its stance was on the damage done by its updates to non-unlocked users.

Apple is likely to face increased scrutinity, as well as possible legal assaults following its attack on unlockers.  It appears that many, including even non-unlockers were affected by the update.  Apple's is entirely unapologetic to those affected.  Their answer--get a new iPhone.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Apple bapple crapple
By Misty Dingos on 10/1/2007 10:05:14 AM , Rating: 5
The iPhone is a decent to good cell phone. But Apple wants to lock it to a single high paying bidder. Personally I would just get a different phone.

The feds have stated and mandated unlocked cell phones. The manufacturers have ducked the mandate for years now. It is time to FORCE the FCC to make them enforce the rules. Locked cell phones should be a thing of the past. Should Apple be hauled into court for screwing over people that bought their cell phone? Maybe but only because the phone should never have been locked in the first place.

I won't buy a locked cell phone. Cell phones are disposable technology. At least they should be. You buy it, you like it, you find something better, you buy that and move on.

Think about this. If Apple can make more money by locking their cell phone to a single provider than they can if they just opened the iPhone to anyone that wanted to buy it, what does that say about their desire for market share?

How many more iPhones would have been sold in the US if the iPhone was available for use with any provider? So someone in Apple made the decision not to sell as many iPhones as they could and force people into two year contracts with a single provider. Why? Does this seem like a good marketing decision? Are the kick backs from ATT that freaking good? And that is exactly what that is, a kick back.

If Ford said “Hey you can buy the new Mustang Cobra but for two years you can only use Citgo gas and if use gas from another outlet when we do the tune up we will break the axels of your car.” Does not the concept of ownership mean anything to anyone anymore?

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By mdogs444 on 10/1/2007 10:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
Considering they get roughly $575+ minimum kickback for a 2 year contract from AT&T.

How much profit do they make on an iPhone? $150? SO theyd have to sell and support 4x as much hardware out there in order to break even with what they get right now. But then again, that wouldnt be breaking even - because they are having this income without having to provide warranty support for those 4x iphones that would be needed to be sold.

Whether we as consumers like it or not, its hard to argue with that income strategy.

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By Misty Dingos on 10/1/2007 10:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
Well bleep it is hard to argue that. I surrender to your business math.

Still don't like the locked cell phone but it does at least make sense.

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By tjr508 on 10/1/2007 10:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
Did you just suggest that market share is more important than profit for a business?

I happen to really like phone locking. Locking adds value to the provider. In every other case except for the iPhone, a good portion of that value is passed on to the consumer. There is still a large unlocked market for the wary.

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By Misty Dingos on 10/1/2007 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
How does locking add anything to the consumer except less choice?

Here are the some of the ‘advantages’ I see to locked cell phones. Long exclusive contracts laden with penalties, poor customer service, zero portability, expensive basic services, premium services are exorbitantly priced, and deceptive sales tactics. Just prying the numbers from the provider’s hands took an act of congress.

And considering the way Apple treats market share in relationship to the iPod series of mp3 players you would think that market share was all they were ever concerned with.

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By Scott66 on 10/1/2007 3:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
An unlocked phone costs 200-300 dollars more than the same phoned locked to a cellular service provider.

So the value in a locked phone is cheaper price.

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By rdeegvainl on 10/2/2007 10:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
wrong! I got my unlocked cell phone for free!!!! i had to sign a contract saying i would pay more if i wanted to end to contract early, but the phone is unlocked and if i wanted to put another sim in it, it would still work.
It cost about 200 dollars retail. Getting a phone cheaper by entering into a contract is not the same as locking a phone.

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By tjr508 on 10/2/2007 11:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
Sort of. The contract does add the majority of the value that is then passed, but the locking of the phone also adds even more of a savings. I believe recent analysis has shown something like $50 (as opposed to ~$300 for an average contract) If I end up with even an average extra savings of $20, then I am happy.

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By Oregonian2 on 10/1/2007 2:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
The iPhone is a decent to good cell phone. But Apple wants to lock it to a single high paying bidder. Personally I would just get a different phone.

In the US there's only one other major carrier it even theoretically can be used for (T-mobile). Do people really love t-mobile that much? Even without the data services that only work on AT&T anyway?

RE: Apple bapple crapple
By jetdoc on 10/1/2007 5:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
How many more iPhones would have been sold in the US if the iPhone was available for use with any provider? So someone in Apple made the decision not to sell as many iPhones as they could and force people into two year contracts with a single provider. Why? Does this seem like a good marketing decision? Are the kick backs from ATT that freaking good? And that is exactly what that is, a kick back.

What people fail to realize is that had there been no exclusive contract, there would be no iPhone. The cell carriers have a modicum of control over what phone manufacturers can and can't do with their phones, and no other cell carrier was willing to give Apple Cart Blanche when developing the iPhone. Seriously, do you think Apple gives a rats ass about AT&T.

The mobile carriers are trying to expand into other markets like entertainment ie. music, video, and game downloads. I'm sure Verizon has spent a lot of money developing and promoting Vcast. The iPhone/iTunes combo is a threat to their aspirations. That's why when Apple approached Verizon, Verizon told them to take a hike. AT&T probably had the least to lose and the most to gain from the iPhone. Let's face it, if the iPhone gains the same success and popularity as the iPod (over 100 million sold), AT&T stands to profit handsomely at the expense of it's rivals. What benefit is there to Apple of an exclusive contract with AT&T? There isn't any. So Apple has supposedly negotiated a deal where they get some benefit from AT&T whether it be a percentage of profits or fixed amount for each new iPhone/contract. I would suppose that as part of the agreement Apple had to assure AT&T that the phone could be locked and kept locked.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles
Apple Strikes Back With Update
September 28, 2007, 1:22 PM

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki