backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by cwb4tx.. on Oct 29 at 11:29 PM
New version of SimFree not only unlocks 1.1.1 hardware, but can unbrick iUnlock or anySIM units damaged by the upgrade

Apple's 1.1.1 firmware and its associated "iBrick" feature have generated a fair amount of press coverage, web site articles and angry blog postings. Some consumers have even gone so far as to file a lawsuit against the company for monopolistic practices and the official company response of "buy a new one" left a bad taste in many customers’ mouth.

However, as with many electronic devices in the past, the game of cat-and-mouse between vendor and hacker continues. The iphoneSimFree team released version 1.6 of its SimFree application, which not only unlocks the new 1.1.1 firmware, but claims to be able to "unbrick" phones rendered inoperable by the upgrade. On the iphoneSimFree website, the proud claim is made that "iphoneSimFree can FIX all phones that anySim and iUnlock bricked with the 1.1.1 update."

The brick-fix requires users to downgrade their iPhone's firmware to 1.0.2, and does require the user to pay the asking price of $100 for the software -- a hefty price compared to anySIM's cost of "free," but still cheaper than a new iPhone. The iphoneSimFree team makes a point to thank the iPhone Dev Team on their page as well, so there seems to be no signs of animosity for their competition.

While DailyTech does not have access to a bricked 1.1.1 iPhone to test this upgrade, a user comment on Engadget claims that the software successfully restored his iBrick to working status.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
"War" Profiteering
By jskirwin on 10/11/2007 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and does require the user to pay the asking price of $100 for the software...


Apple is going to brick 'em again, and these kids will roll out yet another patch.

But are they going to hit users up for another $100? If so, this could bode badly for the enthusiast community.




RE: "War" Profiteering
By ZaethDekar on 10/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: "War" Profiteering
By Kalessian on 10/11/2007 1:34:43 PM , Rating: 5
You think bricking them is just fine?

Apple is a corporation that cares nothing about you, while iPhone owners are consumers just like you or me. Why would you want to take our (and your own) rights away? Why would you side with a ruthless entity rather than your neighbors?

I don't understand some people...


RE: "War" Profiteering
By Parhel on 10/11/2007 1:40:12 PM , Rating: 5
Some people actually enjoy it when a corporation treats consumers unfairly. Those people are known as "customer service."


RE: "War" Profiteering
By marvdmartian on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: "War" Profiteering
By ZaethDekar on 10/11/2007 1:48:32 PM , Rating: 1
If I am making a $600 (at launch) purchase for a phone where they tell you up front the cost, and the only carrier you can use it with, I will respect them and either make the decision to buy it or find something comperable.

If you make the decision to purchase it, then you get upset with it... that is your fault. They told you everything, you made the decision. You take the fall.

Its just like using a pirate version of XP, then trying to update and then it stops working because you don't have a valid CD key.

Its like putting performance engine parts in, and blowing your transmission.

You chose to not be satisfied and then you screwed it up by updating it throwing caution to the wind.


RE: "War" Profiteering
By kkwst2 on 10/11/2007 2:19:24 PM , Rating: 5
It doesn't seem at all like that to me.

To me, it's like GM breaking into my garage and slashing my tires and taking a baseball bat to my windshield because I put new headers on my Vette!

Voiding my warranty? Sure. Having the company purposely destroy my property that I legally purchased just because they don't like the way I use it? No.

I know the analogy isn't perfect, but it's better than yours. Furthermore, the terms of the iPhone contract and their actions in bricking the phone are legally questionable as I understand it. My understanding is reverse engineering for personal use, as well as unlocking phones, were both deemed legal in the courts.


RE: "War" Profiteering
By ZaethDekar on 10/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: "War" Profiteering
By Chris Peredun on 10/11/2007 3:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no DMCA for auto makers.


No, we gearheads have laws that work to our advantage - like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.


RE: "War" Profiteering
By tcsenter on 10/12/2007 12:14:30 AM , Rating: 5
Magnuson-Moss expressly permits manufacturers to condition warranties on the use of articles or services "identified by brand, trade, or corporate name", provided the manufacturer furnish those "articles or services" at no charge.

IOW, if Whirlpool wants to require as a condition of warranty coverage that a consumer exclusively use Whirlpool's laundry detergent or fabric softener, Magnuson-Moss says Whirlpool must supply that detergent or fabric softener at no charge.

Guess what Apple provides at no charge? Yup, system software and firmware updates. Magnuson-Moss expressly permits this.

Furthermore, Magnuson-Moss states that the manufacturer is off-the-hook for honoring any warranty where damage, malfunction, or failure was caused by "unreasonable use" while the product was in the possession of the consumer (e.g. hacking or tampering). I doubt Apple would have much difficulty proving in court that all these bricked iPods would work fine but for the unauthorized firmware tampering, which Apple could hardly be expected to design its firmware needs around. Firmware changes and redesigns are commonplace in the industry. That's the purpose of updateable firmware.

There is also nothing in Magnuson-Moss or other federal law that prevents a manufacturer from designating any part of its device as having no user-serviceable components or parts, when no periodic maintenance is recommened or required for safe or proper operation. This is why consumer electronics/appliance manufacturers are perfectly free to put security stickers and warnings on their DVD players and computer chassis that read something like "warranty null and void if chassis is opened/seal is broken or removed".

iPhone unlockers haven't a legal leg to stand on (duh). It is not up to the manufacturer to ensure that its firmware update is compatible with unauthorized modifications, but rather the exact opposite duty is imposed upon the user to ensure their modifications will be compatible with all OEM design characteristics.

Of course, Apple might decide to settle rather than go to trial. If you can make it go away by paying the lawyers $500,000 while every member of the class gets a $2.00 coupon to Chuck-E-Cheese, settling makes a lot more sense economically. Principle is often cost-prohibitive in our legal system.


RE: "War" Profiteering
By fic2 on 10/12/2007 1:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think a better analogy would be - you bought a GM car and they said that you can only use Exxon gas in the car. You decide that gas is gas and fill-up at the gas station around the corner. Your car checks in with GM and tells them that you have been buying non-Exxon gas. Then they send some goons to take the engine out of your car. And they also tell you that if you want a car that works you can just buy another one and be sure to use only Exxon gas next time.


RE: "War" Profiteering
By chick0n on 10/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: "War" Profiteering
By retrospooty on 10/11/2007 3:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
"Its like putting performance engine parts in, and blowing your transmission."

no, it isnt like that at all. Unlocking does not overdrive the phone past its limits and cause any parts to break as it does in your car analogy.

I agree you are told up front it is exclusive and by unlocking it you void your warranty, but under no circumstances should Apple have bricked the unlocked phones. A voided warranty is all that need to be done. Now the customer can't get it fixed for free if it breaks becasue they chose to unlock it.


RE: "War" Profiteering
By FITCamaro on 10/11/2007 1:36:16 PM , Rating: 4
So you think Apple intentionally causing their own product not to work is perfectly acceptable despite it being perfectly legal to unlock your phone?

There is no reason the update should have bricked the phone. It should have just overwritten the changes made to unlock it and required the user to unlock it again.


RE: "War" Profiteering
By kmmatney on 10/11/2007 5:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
The changes were mainly secrurity fixes. A lot of the hacks used security flaws to break in. If the hacked phones were bricked due to patching up security flaws, so be it...


RE: "War" Profiteering
By mars777 on 10/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: "War" Profiteering
By Treckin on 10/11/2007 10:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
what?


RE: "War" Profiteering
By Christopher1 on 10/14/2007 4:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
No, not 'so be it'. If those security 'flaws' were being used..... then Apple should have made a workaround method for updating them WITHOUT bricking the phones.

Oh, and in case you didn't know...... 5 states are investigating this, because it might have broken their consumer protection laws.


RE: "War" Profiteering
By Polynikes on 10/11/2007 1:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine if a car company could "brick" your car, because you decided you didn't like the exhaust note and put a different muffler on. Or you changed out the CD player. How pissed would you be? I imagine that action would be taken to court IMMEDIATELY, and the car company would pay through the nose in damages.

This is the same thing.