Comments on: Owners of unlocked iPhones hosed by software update
As warned, several owners of unlocked iPhones are reporting that the latest software update to the iPhone has rendered their phone essentially useless.
Crave
- What's Hot:
- Android
- Droid
- Windows 7
- E-readers
- Crave giveaway
- Friday Poll
About Crave
The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com
Add this feed to your online news reader
Crave topics
- Camcorders (343)
- Cameras (1365)
- Cars (1742)
- Desktops (1084)
- Entertainment (1871)
- Fashion (849)
- Future tech (607)
- GPS (364)
- Gadget news (3084)
- Games and gear (2354)
- Green tech (737)
- Home (1400)
- Home video (1013)
- Laptops (2022)
- Lifestyle (1537)
- Luxury (648)
- Military tech (219)
- Music (3440)
- Netbooks (266)
- PDAs (1064)
- Peripherals (1777)
- Phones (4486)
- Retro (375)
- Robots (434)
- Science (515)
- Security (366)
- Smartphones (747)
- Televisions (836)
- Toys (681)
- Weekly Vodcast (91)
- Workplace (326)
Most Popular
E-readers' next chapter--no happy ending?
There were plenty of e-book readers on display at CES 2010, but many question whether the market for such dedicated devices can support all the new entrants.
• Photos: E-readers at CES 2010
Inside the world's long-lost first microcomputer
Vintage computer historians have long revered the Altair 8800. As it turns out, an unknown computer project at Sacramento State beat the Altair by three years.
• Images: The first microcomputers
Of course, both statements are rubbish. There are many Democrats
who don't believe in ripping off businesses. Or at least, don't want
to get caught doing it.
PS. Hadn't you heard that Steve Jobs is a Democrat?
There is no mystery, conspiracy, monopolitic actions, or trickery
here. Weeks, possibly months (because i didn't unlock my
phone I never paid too much attention) before Apple disclosed
that future iPhone software updates would disable modified
iPhones.
So if anyone went through the trouble of unlocking there phone,
and modifying any underlying software. Just how "not-smart"
would it be to have an update applied to it? Updates are
sometimes complete system reloads.
Where's the beef? If you updated your unlocked/modified
iPhone, the fault lies with YOU
Hopefully they come out with more applications from Apple for this since we're not going to be seeing anything new from third parties any time soon. :/
should be punished
Then, when Jobs returned to Apple in the late 1990s, he once again did the same closed-system again - this time with the original bondi blue iMac.
If you did some reading, you'll find that Jobs has ALWAYS believed in sealed, proprietary systems. He never liked the idea of people opening his devices and mucking with the innards.
young and dumb. Fortunately, Steve jobs didn't get caught. You
did.
Steve Jobs grew up. When are you going to?
worked as it was supposed to. You changed the software, so
WHO'S FAULT IS THAT? If you bought a car, a Dodge and decided
to put a Ford engine in it, what would you expect?
I.E...
-You didnt buy the hammer... you merely licensed the right to drive, certain, nails... as long as you do it under the terms of the "EULA".
Or...
-You dont own the car... the car-company merely allows you to use the car for transportation as long as you use the specified gasoline, oil, and listen to the specified radio-stations, while driving. Otherwise the "licensee" (buyer) agrees that the manufacturer retains the "right" to disable the vehicle, at the companies discretion.
Or, even...
The manufacturer retains the right to continually verify that you havent "stolen" those pants, and may continually, and randomly, demand proof of ownership, and effectively-confiscate any pants that can not be proven to be properly "licensed".
Pretty ridiculous isnt it?
But, honestly, this, mind-set, is nothing new. In fact, it is one of the oldest forms of societal-structures. It is often referred to as a "serfdom". In this classical-society, a small (usually hereditary) "royalty" permanently retains ownership of virtually all "property". The "serfs" (by Law) can never actually "own" property. And, those "serfs" (thats us, folks) are only allowed... under a very strict set of permissions and circumstances... merely to make limited-use of even the most basic necessities of life. This is, exactly, the situation that we are, apparently, being forcibly-herded back towards.
Frankly, I, personally, think this is fundamentally Un-American AND a violation of, the most basic, human-rights. And, in my opinion, this -abuse- clearly needs to be stopped.
For that matter, this is the mindset behind the income tax. We serfs are only allowed to work and earn a wage by the good graces of the government, but those wages actually belong to "the people", and can be confiscated, by force if necessary, at any time and distributed to those deemed "less fortunate".
It's a sickening trend for this country and one that companies have obviously seen work for the Feds and emulated.
That being said... People, you knew the update would kill your phone when Apple told you so a week ago. Why in the frickin' world would you intentionally disable your own phone and then complain about it??? If you hacked your own phone and then killed your own phone, it's your own damn fault. That's called personal responsibility, and I have no sympathy for you.
away and wreck it, if you want. Apple just isn't going to repair it
when you break it, though. And if Apple's upgrade writes over
your applications and hacks, then it is your responsibility to fix
it. You're the one who broke it.
You want two things simultaneously: you get to change the
iPhone in any way you want it, yet Apple is still responsible for
keeping it running. Where did you get the idea that you had a
right to expect that?
That being said, I also don't have any sympathy for those who hacked their iPhones and now are whining about it not working. If you didn't think that was a possibility when you started loading cracks onto your iPhone, you're a moron.
Bottom line is that Apple can do whatever the hell they want to. Vote with your wallet as to whether or not you agree with it.
you're nobody. Personal responsibility is anathema. You don't
vote with your pocketbook. Instead you declare yourself to be
Apple's victim and beat your breast in public forums. Your
victimhood defines who you are. People who bought iPhones,
hacked them, and now have non-functional devices are Apple's
VICTIMS and crave, no, DEMAND, empathy and sympathy.
Don't buy something if you don't like the terms? Pfffft. Are you
kidding? You buy it first, then proclaim your victimhood and
start the whining and crying.
People like you and me just don't get it. That's not how America
works any more. We need to get with the plan. :-)
own an iPhone.... read through them. They're just bashing Apple to
go against them.
Smart hackers didn't run the update and will probably find a work-
around (which Apple understands and probably doesn't care much
about). Publicly they need to follow through as part of their
agreement with AT&T. Secretly they could probably care less. Sure
they make money on usage, but they're also going to sell a ton of
these. Wasn't there an article here not long ago about 'Steve's master
plan'?
1) If you don't like Apple, AT&T and/or the iPhone, don't buy one.
2) If you do buy one and then hack it, don't complain if you end up
with a brick.
3) If you don't own one, don't waste your time complaining here.
The rest is, as suspected Steve does no rule the world he just wishes he did. Apple have spent years hanging ***** on Microsoft for inferior products that need constant patching (probably because they work on any ones hardware) yet can?t get it right when he controls the show.
It is however heartening so see that so many of his disciples believe so much in the man and his company that they are not only willing to spend a bucket load of cash on an inferior phone (2nd generation) that Steve dictates where and how it will work and if they dare deviate from his word he will break it, but also will fight all criticism of said god on all forums and the really funny bit is that they believe it (like they believe that there is really only the need for one button on a mouse).
I don?t nor ever will own an Apple product
Oh and didn?t Steve tell the record companies to drop DRM pity he can?t practice what he preaches but alas false gods seldom can.
than though company need an update."
You understand damn well why it needs an update and isn't to
brick a HANDFUL of hacked iPhones. Consider it service pack 1
it. Apple has always issued more upgrades than Microsoft. We
Mac users get more than just bug fixes: there aren't any real
bugs on a Mac-- just vulnerabilities that get patched before they
become a problem--Not long after there is a virus in the wild
like Microsoft. We get new features in our upgrades.
Microsoft had to dump Longhorn as unmanageable after four
years of promises. Then it took Windows Server 2003 and built a
GUI on it. Apple issued five major upgrades in the time that
Microsoft dropped Longhorn and put lipstick on a pig in Vista.
If you don't like an iPhone or a Mac-- don't buy one, Please.
Geez, you're out of date. Apple's mouse has had four buttons
and a scroll wheel for four years. Why won't you Apple haters
update your arguments?
Then along comes a "hacker" who sells a an ECU chip mod which will allow you to fill up at any gas station that you want. It works great until you take it to the Toyota dealer to get the oil changed. When you do they make it so your car won't run on any gas, not even BP.
See how this is a much closer analogy?
he US Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides protection for consumers that prohibits Apple from voiding an Iphone warranty due to third party modifications or enhancements.
"The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (P.L. 93-637) is a United States federal law (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.). Enacted in 1975, it is the federal statute that governs warranties on consumer products.
The Act was sponsored by Senators Warren G. Magnuson of Washington and Frank Moss of Utah, both Democrats.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Purpose of the Magnuson-Moss Act
* 2 Definitions in the Magnuson-Moss Act
* 3 Requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Act
* 4 Limitations of the Magnuson-Moss Act
* 5 Remedies under the Magnuson-Moss Act
* 6 Sources
* 7 External links
[edit] Purpose of the Magnuson-Moss Act
According to the Report of the House of Representatives which accompanied the law (House Report No. 93-1197, 93d Cong 2d Sess.) the Magnuson-Moss act was enacted by Congress in response to the widespread misuse by merchants of express warranties and disclaimers. The legislative history indicates that the purpose of the Act is to make warranties on consumer products more readily understood and enforceable and to provide the Federal Trade Commission with means to better protect consumers (Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc. 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002)).
The statute is remedial in nature and is intended to protect consumers from deceptive warranty practices. Consumer products are not required to have warranties, but if one is given, it must comply with the Magnuson-Moss Act.
[edit] Definitions in the Magnuson-Moss Act
The Magnuson-Moss Act contains many definitions:
* A "consumer" is a buyer of consumer goods for personal use. A buyer of consumer products for resale is not a consumer.
* A "supplier" is any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers.
* A "warrantor" is any supplier or other person who gives or offers a written warranty or who has some obligation under an implied warranty.
* A "consumer product" is generally any tangible personal property for sale and that is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes. It is important to note that the determination whether a good is a consumer product requires a factual finding, on a case-by-case basis. Najran Co. for General Contracting and Trading v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 1081 (S.D. Ga. 1986).
* A "written warranty" is any written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a consumer that relates to the material and/or workmanship and that affirms that the product is defect-free or will meet a certain standard of performance over a specified time.
* An "implied warranty" is one that is defined in state law. The Magnuson-Moss Act simply provides limitations on disclaimers and provides a remedy for their violation.
* A "full warranty" is one that meets the federal minimum standards for a warranty. Such warranties must be "conspicuously designated" as full warranties.
* A "limited warranty" is one that does not meet the federal minimums. Such warranties must be "conspicuously designated" as limited warranties.
* A "service contract" is different from a warranty because service contracts do not affirm the quality or workmanship of a consumer product. A service contract is a written instrument in which a supplier agrees to perform, over a fixed period of time or for a specified duration, services relating to the maintenance or repair, or both, of a consumer product. Agreements that meet the statutory definition of service contracts, but are sold and regulated under state law as contracts of insurance, do not come under the Act's provisions.
[edit] Requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Act
The Act provides that any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty must disclose, fully and conspicuously, in simple and readily understood language, the terms and conditions of the warranty to the extent required by rules of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has enacted regulations governing the disclosure of written consumer product warranty terms and conditions on consumer products actually costing the consumer more than $15. The Rules can be found at 16 C.F.R. Part 700.
Under the terms of the Act, ambiguous statements in a warranty are construed against the drafter of the warranty.
Likewise, service contracts must fully, clearly, and conspicuously disclose their terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language.
Full Warranty Requirements Under a full warranty, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with the written warranty, the warrantor:
* must, as a minimum, remedy the consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge;
* may not impose any limitation on the duration of any implied warranty on the product;
* may not exclude or limit consequential damages for a breach of any written or implied warranty on the product, unless the exclusion or limitation conspicuously appears on the face of the warranty; and
* if the product, or a component part, contains a defect or malfunction, must permit the consumer to elect either a refund or replacement without charge, after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
In addition, the warrantor may not impose any duty, other than notification, upon any consumer, as a condition of securing the repair of any consumer product that malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty. However, the warrantor may require consumers to return a defective item to its place of purchase for repair.
[edit] Limitations of the Magnuson-Moss Act
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not invalidate or restrict any right or remedy of any consumer under any other federal law, nor does the Act supersede the Federal Trade Commission Act as it pertains to antitrust actions.
The Act does not invalidate or restrict any right or remedy of any consumer under state law. The Act is not the dominant regulation of consumer product warranties, and while it prescribes certain disclosures and restricts certain limitations on warranties, it leaves other warranty law untouched. Richardson v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 254 F.3d 1321, 45 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 56 (11th Cir. 2001).
Although the Act covers warranties on repair or replacement parts in consumer products, warranties on services for repairs are not covered.
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
[edit] Remedies under the Magnuson-Moss Act
The Act is meant to provide consumers with access to reasonable and effective remedies where there is a breach of warranty on a consumer product. The Act provides for informal dispute-settlement procedures and for actions brought by the government and by private parties.
The FTC has been mandated by Congress to promulgate rules to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution, and full warranties may require mediation and/or arbitration as a first step toward settling disputes.
In addition, the federal government has the authority to take injunctive action against a supplier or warrantor who fails to meet the requirements of the act.
Finally, consumers may seek redress in the courts for alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act."
being legally obligated. In fact this excerpt:
"The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if
the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a
warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the
possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including
a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance."
pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of your argument. I would
consider hacking your device "unreasonable use."
Additionally, Apple does not offer a full warranty on the iPhone,
they offer a limited warranty which states that you must accept
the software license agreement in order to use the software. If
you break that license agreement, they are at liberty to revoke
your right to use the software.
product? The recent upgrade told you that the upgrade could
break or overwrite any third party apps or unlocking software.
The safe thing to do was not to upgrade. That way you kept the
iPhone as you changed it. How is apple responsible for your
modifications when those modifications violate the warrantee?
This has nothing to do with an Apple caused defect. It has to do
with a defect caused by the consumer.
Apple never gave you permission to insert changes in Apple's
operating System. It expressly told you not to. If you operate
machinery under conditions forbidden by the manufacturer then
you take the responsibility when it breaks.
At the heart of the matter, however, is your lack of understanding of this law? Regurgitation is not the same thing. Like an earlier responder noted, it is going to be tough going for a court to find Apple in violation of the law, unless they can prove that the update was released with the full knowledge of and sole intent to cause damage to an unlocked product. As usual, the key word here is intent.
While I do feel some sympathy for new owners of iBricks, one must realize that this is still a hack, or modification if you will, to the original product. If you put new rims on your car and something happens as a result, the car's manufacturer is not going to be held liable - unless of course the problem existed prior to the modifications.
Through the act of modification, you, the consumer, release a manufacturer of a product from their warranty. People may not like it, but then most people don't read their warranties anyway. It's in there. Always is. The Magnuson-Moss Act is why.
Hacks are always third party and unauthorized by the
manufacturer. If a consumer has hacked his iPhone and only the
old firmware keeps it operating, then the consumer broke the
iPhone when it inserted the change.
Apple has no responsibility to know or even care if you have
hacked your iPhone. It assumes that you have not broken your
agreements with Apple and changes its firmware to suit its
purpose. If this results in unfortunate consequences from your
modification, that is on your head.
Again, how many times did you fail logic?
HSDPA. This not compatible with the CDMA2000 plus EVDO on
Verizon. Eventually there will be a chip that will handle all the
frequencies and software but not for many years.
Apple had to choose its best path for growth. It had to make
considerable compromises to even get into the market. That
path is AT&T because it has the most customers. This
balkanization of the mobile phone market is a hangover from
the local telephone monopolies allowed by the government.
Mobile Phones are a technical mess through out the world and
will be for many years. There are too many competing standards.
Apple did not create the problem and may be part of the
solution.
The Apple/AT&T deal is idiotic and should be illegal. El Chupageek is right in his arguments - no other carrier or phone or contract is like this. All other phones through all other carriers are subsidized; if you sign up for a contract, you get the phone at a cheaper rate. For the iPhone, not only do you pay full price (a 51% markup, even) for the phone, you are locked in for 2 years to AT&T's service at ridiculous prices that are not required to be so high because they're not trying to recoup losses from the subsidized phone sale!
This was and is a clear attempt to price gouge on both Apple and AT&T's part, and I hope they both come down hard because of it.
Plus, by an exception to the DMCA, it is perfectly legal for a person to unlock a phone for use on another carrier. Apple INTENTIONALLY wrote their update to break any unlocked phone, because it resets the activation and forces a user to re-unlock the phone and tries to force them into unlocking it through 'valid' means.
Because of the exception in the DMCA, Apple cannot legally place anything in the license agreement that would make unlocking the phone a violation of said agreement. Just as I cannot make someone my slave because I have a clause in their tenant rental agreement that says they are (thus violating their 14th Amendment rights), Apple cannot make it against their rules to do something which we have the right to do by Federal law.
Ultimately, to me, this just wreaks of Apple's haughty arrogance and eliteness. They need to step down a few hundred notches and play in the real world.
AT&T agreed to changing the customary up front subsidy
standard that every other Smart Phone uses. Instead of a
subsidy, it accepted a novel sharing of mobile service fees. It
spent hundreds of millions of $ to upgrade its EDGE system to
faster speeds. It adopted new technologies from Apple on its
servers to give Apple visual voice mail. It allowed Apple to
activate its phones at the on line Apple store. It agree to lower
prices for monthly service than for other Smart Phones ($60 vs
$80 to $100.) It allowed Apple be the contact point for the
iPhone, not AT&T. These changes are unprecedented.
All these things break AT&T's mobile marketing business plan.
That is scary stuff for a company as hidebound as AT&T. You
have no appreciation for how desperate AT&T had to be to
accept these ground breaking changes. Verizon said that it
looked at this same offer and balked.
All the rest of your comment are just too strange for words.
Do as your told, use only what we tell you is good. Everything else is evil. We're watching you and know when you are bad.
Move along. There's nothing to see here.
now want to blame Apple.
If the Apple update made it to where hacked iPhones could never use the AT&T service again, then it would be the same deal.
You cant still use an iPhone to make phone calls...
- Vote Ron Paul 2008
- by MrKing.net September 28, 2007 4:20 AM PDT
- Ron Paul for President in 2008
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Ron Paul are you kidding?!
- by techned September 28, 2007 7:53 AM PDT
- The Republican version of Kucinich - short in height and short sighted.
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (217 Comments)Iphone is evil
Do us a favor and keep politics out of here - geeks only - not kooks.