John: Thank you for a clear-eyed and insightful review of this very touchy subject. Of course, if you posted this anywhere less Apple-friendly, you'd probably find yourself in the middle of a firestorm.

There are a couple of big, big problems with your
analogy.

1) Why would the BMW dealer go ahead and update his
engine software when the car has been modified and
as you say should no longer be supported in any way
by BMW? That's essentially what Apple does. Don't
tell me that they don't do a checksum of the firmware
currently in the phone before flashing. If they don't
then they have some amazingly piss poor programmers
working at Apple. If that's the case then Apple is
ABSOLUTELY responsible they took responsibility when
they modified the firmware knowing the original had
been modified. In your analogy BMW would be absolutely
responsible. That's why they will refuse to work on
the car rather than upgrade it and in effect take
responsibility.

2) If the car was working before said software update
which was pushing the engine to it's upper range, why
would it stop working when it was tuned down? That makes
no sense. Your analogy is the same as a guy who overclocks
his CPU getting a BIOS update that sets the clock back
to factory settings suddenly having the CPU burn up.
That makes absolutely no sense.

If Apple did not intend to brick the phones, then why
update them at all if they know the firmware has
been modified. Also...If it is "accidental" as they
claim, then how would they know whether it happened
on a modified phone or just a regular phone. They
seem pretty darn convinced that it only happens on
modified phones. Hmm...

Like I've said before...
When you udpate firmware you typically read the existing
firmware and checksum it. You might save a backup copy
of it (user choice), and then you would flash or not
flash the new based on your findings. It would take
how long to add the If, Then statement of "Your firmware
is non-standard, do you want to update and possibly
destroy your phone anyway?"

On a final note...
You seem to have skipped the major legal issue.
Is it legal/illegal to unlock your phone? As far
as I know it is legal. If I travel out of the country
and I want to use my phone I call T-Mobile and they
say give us a couple of days to get back to you with
the codes.

Why not stick with a truly related industry. Let's take the iPod, as our far analogy, especially since the analogy you are using with BMW is not even real world, as engine computer updates don't brick because of user mods, rather user mods break other parts of the engine. For the sake of carrying on with your flawed analogy, but placing it into reality, what would happen at BMW or Audi when they "noted that the engine software has been tampered with. Your warranty is void." What they would do is not do any service. The update would not be applied. Apple instead chose to continue with the update which they knew would brick some phones. If Apple were to behave as responsibly as BMW or Audi do in the real world, it would simply check for unsigned code running on the phone, and not allow modified phones from receiving updates or warranty service.

The difference here, and between other software companies like Microsoft, is that they don't offer the service to modified or stolen products. You cannot get the update. Here Apple chose to apply the update without properly checking for modifications first, knowing fully that modified phones would be broken in the process.

Now, let's get to the better analogy, the iPod. The Rockbox project and iPod Linux have been around for years, and better yet, the precedents we are following are those of the very same corporation that sells the iPhone, Apple. Bricking a device will modifying it has always been known a risk, but that risk is usually beared by those earliest hackers, the first few devices that are modified. After the modification has stabilized, then it is distributed to the rest of the community. Bricking an iPod while installing Rockbox or iPod Linux is very rare and only happens now when something like a battery failure occurs during the firmware update (which can brick an iPod even with an Apple provided update). Not once has Apple issued an update to the iPod that bricked a device because of a firmware modification made by the consumer. One of two things happens, either the update applies successfully or it refuses to apply at all.

The difference here is that Apple chose not to be responsible, nay they specifically chose to release an update knowing that it will brick phones that are unlocked. What would be Apple's motivation for not performing the necessary checks to prevent their hardware from becoming unusable? What is special about the iPhone that differentiates it from the iPod? Their contract with AT&T and financial stake in that relationship. Apple applied an update to devices it knew it would brick. It's pretty simple.

"It's not our fault, we know our cars." No, argument is the opposite! If Apple was able to tell their iPhone from one that a user had modified, then this would never have happened. Either they don't know how to tell the difference, or they didn't care to tell the difference. Since we know Apple can tell the difference with modified iPods, and we assume that Apple has not suddently lost their competence, we must conclude that Apple chose to not check, and chose to intentionally brick unlocked phones.

Here's were the analogy really breaks down. Bill, having the class and taste and cash to buy a BMW, would not scoff at putting premium gas in it. Bill is also a very presentable guy. So if he went to court, he'd look respectable to the judge and jury. In reality, iPhone unlockers are more like Scion drivers. They have no sense of style, and usually aren't terribly presentable. Word up, iPhone modders... Try modding your faces with some Clearasil and then get back to us...

John -

Your post compares the "BMW update" with Apple's update. This is out right wrong. And here's why.

Just a few days before Apple released the update (1.1.1), Apple released a statement saying that any new update which they will release to the public will make the iPhones inoperable.

Now, this is interesting, because, Apple already knew that unlocked and even "jail-broke" iPhones will be bricked. Which also means that they (Apple) tried the update on their own phones which were unlocked/modified and saw what was the result of the new patch.

Apple wants to keep the iPhone in its original working condition, and obviously does not allow the use of 3rd party native applications on the phone. It released the new update simply for the reason to lock up the phones and make them unusable.

And to add insult to injury, Apple told their customers to buy a new phone instead. This is downright a dirty way to slap it's customers in the face. A simple comparison is not to a car's computer, which as you pointed out, can damage physical components and make the car inoperable. Please tell me if ever, there was a software application which damaged computer components. And I am being careful here, because there are overclocking application which can damage CPU's and GPU's, but none of the 3rd party apps I used over clocked the iPhones CPU or caused any physical damage.

Which means that a clean re-install of the iPhone's OS should have fixed the problem, but Apple was smart enough to not to allow that either. I tried restoring the phone to original state and that didn't work, as well the "geniuses" at the geniuous bar in apple store.

Now one other thing to note is that there were 2 other prior updates to the iPhone. 1.0.1 and 1.0.2. And those updates for some reason did not brick the phones. When I modified my phone it was version 1.0.1. After I applied the 1.0.2 update to it, it was still working the same way. However after 1.1.1 it became bricked.

I panicked at first and spent days on trying to figure out what to do; I finally got the phone replaced by Apple support. Not something that most people did, but spent hours on the phone with them and got a new phone.

In any event, apple acted in its own self interest and not in the interest of its customers.

You are absolutly correct!

Apple's playing innocent with their "the update may brick your phone if you modded it" defense does not stand up to scrutiny. Apparently you are still able to make emergency calls (i.e. 911) from a bricked phone. So it is not the case that the software update and the modifications are incompatible and lead to a phone that stops working. Rather, Apple designed their software update specifically to render modded phones unusable. Furthermore, the 911 emergency option is a tacit admission by Apple that they there is liability for bricking a phone.

Apple was within its rights, sure. I take no issue with Apple doing what it wants to do with its software. I take issue with the people who defend this action and say Apple is protecting the consumer. It is the exact opposite, Apple is protecting itself, and that's fine, that is what this megacorporations do, it does not suprise me. But let's not pretend this is good for the consumer. People who modify hardware know they are taking risks. We usually expect the device to break while applying updates from third parties, this is the first and only instance I know of that an offical update bricked devices.

So just be warned, Apple wants you to use their hardware only as they say. Take this into consideration with all future purchases, Apple owns your products and if you choose to try to expand their functionality, you need to be weary of ever letting them touch it again. Otherwise, if you are the type of person who likes to think about ways to improve your interaction with a product, then Apple is not right for you.

It isn't legal for Apple to intentionally brick your phone.

Most companies know this.
Why do you think Apple keeps using the terms "Accidental"
and "Unintentional."

The problem is that it creates a Catch 22 for Apple.
If it is an "Accident" as they claim, then they need
to support/fix all of the bricked phones. If it is
an accident then you wouldn't know that it only happens
on "modified" phones. You would assume that it could
accidentally happen to a regular phone.

That's why when MS did their 'Genuine Advantage' updates
it just displays annoying messages for machines with
illegal copies of windows software. It does NOT destroy
the computer or trash the contents of the drive.

They did the same thing with modified XBOX's. They
closed accounts and restored the hard drive software
to factory default. They did NOT brick XBOX's!

If MS did this nobody would be saying it is MS's right.
They would be screaming bloody murder from the rafters.

I know EULA's are regarded as worthless, but when the iPhone was activated the user agreed to Apple's EULA. Going back further, when the iPhone was announced, it was widely publicized that it would contractually work only on AT&T's network, which is localized to the United States of America (and doesn't even provide coverage for the whole country), so don't cry to me about how you want it to work outside of the US and how you want it to work with another carrier. Don't quote me T-Mobile's unlocking policy - it's hardly law and by definition is T-Mobile's policy, not AT&T's. Again, before the product hit market, you knew it was going to require a new two-year contract. At the end of the contract, you can talk to your carrier about unlocking. It's nice that they provided a GoPhone option, almost got me to purchase one, except that you'd need a $20/month unlimited data plan to go along with it to use all the iPhone's features, which kind of defeats the purpose. I certainly won't argue that any of the analogies listed are 100% valid, but come on. Apple announced that the new firmware update would break third party app support as well as any unlock, and it was not forced upon the consumer but was something they had to press an on-screen button to agree to apply. If the unlocking process had bricked iPhones, would it have been Apple's fault? Would it have been the developer's? Or would the idiot applying an untested patch that violates the intended functionality of the device who was to blame? Stop whining about it. Apple is hardly unique in this situation - plenty of companies detect third-party modification and brick during an update or outright deny use - game consoles are famous for it and I think the PlayStation Portable is the origin of the "bricking" concept. Could Apple have been nicer to people who broke the terms of use? Sure they could have. But the one thing I don't see here is was it Apple, or did AT&T panic and use the exclusivity contract to make Apple lock it down? Ultimately, nobody involved was pushed into anything here. You walked into the store and spent hundreds of dollars on a phone you knew was locked to the carrier. It's easy enough to check if you're in AT&T's coverage zone to know whether you'll get service or not. If you used it out of country, what the hell were you thinking? And if you pressed the button to install an update that you were warned would disable your hacks, thinking maybe it won't happen to me, I hope you learned your lesson. So until there's firm law in the US about whether carriers and manufacturers can get away with what they're doing, just shut up about it, okay? There Is No Law. Get Over It. DMCA doesn't operate within the bounds of the contract agreement. And if you paid to break your contract (or otherwise slipped around it) then you're an unsupported user as you're not paying the company for support. What's so hard about this?

If you made it this far through my rant, please don't think I support Apple or AT&T in what they have done- I don't own an iPhone for that reason, much as I'd like one, because the cost (not so much of admission but of continued service) isn't worth it to me. However, no-one had that 1.1.1 update forced down their throats (unlike the BMW analogy that started it all), they had to agree to apply it.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
It isn't legal for Apple to intentionally brick your phone.

Apple didn't intentionally brick the iPhones. Users bricked the phones themselves when they ignored warnings that the update may render the hacked phone inoperable.

Well, Mr. Martellano, you do write interesting articles and mostly I tend to agree with you, but this time I must beg to differ.
I can go along with the point that people who deliberately hack their phones, should be prepared to run the risk of something wrong happening to the devices and that the warranty would not be valid then.
But, you just posted another car-allegory, written by another journalist, which I find more appropriate and fitting. It is like a producer of any brand of cars would tell their customers that they could only use petrol from one company in the first place.
The whole strategy with locking customers to one operator, is not a very wise step, in the first place. I wonder if it isn't against the law in other European countries, aside from France as well. If it isn't, it definetely should be.
If there are services which would only work to 100% with one operator, then customers should be informed of that. And be left to choose - do you want to go with them or do you prefer to go with another, and not having this or that service to operate to 100%? It is up to you.

That is one thing. Apple already has a negative reputation for locking customers and being proprietary, which is of course mostly rubbish, but the reputation is there and it sticks. Therefore, Apple would do well in not choosing strategies which will add gasoline to the fire.

And if they really are confident that they are delivering an outstanding product, then it should also survive in a world of multiple choices. Otherwise, I am afraid it won't survive for long and that is really sad, because it seems to be a great device.

Finally, you also have the case with developers like the ones behind iToner - they claim that they didn't hack into the phone to have it to work and that everything which was done, was done on the user-side of the phone - but iToner was also rendered useless by the update. What is the strategy behind that?

If I buy a product, I'd expect that I could do what I wanted with it as long as I kept within "the user side" as was the case with the iToner. Hacking is one thing, but this was not.

I am not interested in hacks, neither am I so interested in various applications, but I would like to choose the operator and to be able to swap the SIM-card when I go to another country, to save some money. Apple doesn't want me to do that, if I buy the iPhone, so I am afraid I will have to wait until some competitor comes with a similar product - and in this market, I think we will see such...

Bravo John. Well put. I'm sure that in the near future Everyone will be able to own an iPhone and take it to any cell carrier for service. That day is not today and it was well known to ALL purchasers of the iPhone that it was exclusive to ATT when they bought them. I feel that the rush to be among the first to own the iPhone overpowered the common sense to read the fine print. When in doubt read the manual and contract BEFORE you do something you may regret. A little patience goes a long way.

Geat way to analize this. Everyone read the agreement before they signed up with AT&T and also the agreement with Apple. I see no reason that either AT&T or Apple should have to be blamed for pay for anything.

Thats right, I'm tired of people whining how Apple broke their phone when Apple issued a warning in ADVANCE. Jez, people!

John
info@steamteam.ca

I really don't get it. Why would someone with a hacked iPhone even BOTHER to apply the 1.1.1 update when they KNEW it could brick their phone... My wife (who is not technical at all) won't let me update her iPhone software because she knows it will disable the ringtones I put on her phone using the .m4r trick in iTunes 7.4.1 She doesn't care about the enhancements in 1.1.1 (which I showed her on my iPhone)... so again who is to blame here? Apple or the people who ignored the 1.1.1 update warnings... if there had been NO warnings, then I could see how people would be upset...

Quote

Guest wrote:
Why not stick with a truly related industry.

The truth is that these morons hacked a device and then applied a firware update to that hacked device... that is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard of...

But for the sake of argument.. how about a bios flash, thats as close to a firware update as you can get... it's voluntary... you don't have to do it, no PC manufacturer guarentees that it will work.. but by all means, don't ever attempt it if you have tampered with the original chip in any way.. and by all means, make sure you are plugged into a UPS... because if your power goes down in the middle of a bios flash.. say buh bye to that motherboard...

Is the manufacturer going to do anything to compensate you for frying your bios while you attempted to flash it? Answer.. no... I have fried 7 in my career. One due to power loss, One was tampered with by a customer and I was not aware of that until after the fact. 3 were on the same board, but I installed new bios chips and then attempted to flash them, but there was something wrong with the board.. could be ESD (not from me as I use an ESD workstation, ankle and wrist straps), could have been a manufacturers defect, Asus couldn't tell me, but they were more than happy to sell me more bios chips or a new mother board.

Point is... that if a person was dumb enough to brick their iPhone by installing the firmware update on their hacked iPhone... then they deserve a brick...

And don't you think that those people being able to create apps and unlock the iPhone were exploiting huge security holes that were guarenteed to be closed anyway??? And not for vindictive reasons.. for the sheer sake of having a secure device.

I personally enjoyed the Beemer analogy... too bad you were too retentive to enjoy it with the rest of us.

Everyone seems to have missed the fact that modded phones are not the only ones 'bricked.' This whole thing may very well be the result of an insufficiently beta tested update. Now has that ever happened before, even with Apple? I never saw this kind of foofaraw over bugs before.

Obviously people do not have concensus on this topic. I do believe the author of this article is absolutely correct. His Class #1 customer is the primary user of an iPhone, and will have had no problems with any update that Apple offered on the iPhone. The other ones are whining about something that was never offered with the iPhone as it is currently sold.

I use a Treo as my current cell phone, on the Verizon network. When the Treo first was released, it only worked on the Sprint network. I had a Palm at that time, and a regular cell phone, still on Verizon. I had no intention of spending the $$$ on a Treo, trying to modify it to work on some other network than what it was setup to handle. It made more sense to me to wait until it was offered with other carriers than Sprint. I waited, Verizon began to sell Treos that worked on Verizon, problem solved. If I had previously _needed_ a Treo so much that I _had to have one_ it would have been smarter to just drop Verizon and go to Sprint.

If an iPhone is such a GOT TO HAVE ONE product, accept AT&T and its terms. Otherwise, wait until the exclusivity period has passed, and get one with the cell carrier of your choice that offers one. By the time this happens, it will be version 2 or 3 of the iPhone, and it will be as much better than the current iPhone as a 4th Gen iPod is over a 1st Gen iPod.

I can't use WMV files on my iPod. If I make a hardware and software modification that bypasses that problem, and subsequently results in a broken iPod when a software update happens, whose fault is that? MINE! Not Apple's.

one question:

If I brick my iphone,will Apple repair it for a fee??
If they do Im fine with that
If they dont there's malisciousness

simple

If very few people have been affected by ''bricked'' iPhones, then where are these legions of complaints coming from?

Let's see, who is best served by bad press for the iPhone? There's Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft, Sony-Eriksson, and, oh yes, the Symbian folks, along with dozens of other players who make parts, sims, etc.

So who could be writing all these negative blogs? I give up. Who? Could me many of them are not Apple customers at all.

Roger Mercer

I can't see a way to brick a phone by applying an update
so what happened is that the new software is incompatible
with whatever changes the hack made and surely as we are seeing on the net the damage can be reversed.
I have never really seen a virus destroy a machine, have
you??

You, sir, are not an Apple customer.
If you choose to mod the phone for your own puposes, you have created your own device, and have become your own customer, or the customer of the creators of the hack. You don't have a right to call yourself an Apple customer and expect them to do all in their power to help you with your modded product.

Sorry, above post was meant to follow this quote;

Quote

Guest wrote:

In any event, apple acted in its own self interest and not in the interest of its customers.

Apple doe's not have to check any ones hack. You don't have
a clue.

I agree with you, but I think this is even simpler than you portray. You buy a windows PC and and make no changes to the OS, and apply the Patch from microsoft and it bricks your PC. You will get told by MS that's the hardware guys fault, you call the hardware guy and he tells you it's Microsoft's fault and your PC never works again and nobody will ever fix it without charging you expensive support fees. You'd never hear about this situation in the news because we have become accustom to Microsoft sending out a patch that kills our PC on a weekly or monthly basis.

The Genius Bar is busy enough -- no way should Apple waste their technicians time helping those who knowingly voided the warranty -- they have more important customers than the iBrickers.

I believe there is a different class of customer that makes up the majority of Brickheads...PC Users with loads of illegal Kazaa and Napster downloads. Let 'em cry.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone seems to have missed the fact that modded phones are not the only ones 'bricked.' This whole thing may very well be the result of an insufficiently beta tested update. Now has that ever happened before, even with Apple? I never saw this kind of foofaraw over bugs before.

And that point is well made. If you tracked some of commentary on the security patches released this year, there was lots of complaining about Apple releasing bad patches for Mac OS X. Hell, I recall an Apple patch breaking the Apple supplied ftpd (FTP server) in OS X 10.2 (I think). The patch was just broken and Apple fixed it eventually.

As for the warning about not applying it to modded iPhones? Maybe someone in Apple knew how half-baked their testing of this software update was and decided to cover Apple's collective butts. Even if it was intentional on Apple's part (which I personally doubt), I doubt any lawsuit will ever be able to prove that to the standards required in court.

I agree with the point of view that if you do something that explicitly violates the warranty of the product you own, you cannot expect any further support from the manufacturer on the modified components. Since it was the OS of the iPhone folks were modifying, they should not expect any further support from Apple for the iPhone OS.

It is arrogant to think that you can use a product in a way that is not recommended by the manufacturer and expect the operation to meet your requirements and the warranty to still be valid.

A good example is an external hard drive. There are some glued-on covers which hide screws and adjustment features. The guarantee is void if these are removed. Why? Screwing with the unit could compromise the operation and if you do so, how is the manufacturer to know what you did and is the malfunction a result of your tinkering or a manufacturing defect.

Those of us to make things have difficulty enough ensuring good functionality of the product within the bounds of "normal" use ( trying to cover most of the dumb things that could happen to a product in the hands of the public using it for it's inteded purpose ). To willingly modify a product, just to be one-up on the manufacturer, or honestly thinking you know better, is asking for trouble.

My new iMac is about the right size for a portable work bench. It is nice and flat, easy to clean and all I have to do is modify the hinge so that it pivots to a flat position. My only worry is that if the surface cracks I might have trouble cleaning it. I hope the warranty covers cracked screens. On the other hand if it doesn't I could sue the a... of Apple Inc. and my retirement would be in the bag. Hmm.....

Cheers:
Bob

If a third party website were to create software that were to intentionally disable a Mac desktop and make it a brick . . . then Apple would be quite upset . . . perhaps calling it a virus. (even if a user installed it themselves without realizing it would disable the Mac)

If Apple's developers intentionally disable iPhones with their software -- then they are creating a virus.

If the developers do this by accident. Fine . . . they have no responsibility to make sure unlocked phones work.

But the moment they cause this harm on purpose - they are crossing a line they would not want others to cross against them, and they should face whatever consequences a ma