You could “hack” your Bimmer’ engine to run on methane (using corn or manure), but I doubt if BMW would be willing to honor the warranty if the engine got damaged.

However, other BMW owners wouldn’t give you any sympathy for doing something that stupid.

You could “hack” your Bimmer’ engine to run on methane (using corn or manure), but I doubt if BMW would be willing to honor the warranty if the engine got damaged.

However, other BMW owners wouldn’t give you any sympathy for doing something that stupid.

Exactly. 

No whining here. It was a calculated risk. I get the iPhone 6 weeks early. It is so far ahead of any alternative that I am willing to accept not updating beyond 1.0.2 if that’s what it takes. At any time I can buy a new iPhone with a contract if I’ve bricked it. I will have paid for it with contract savings in 6 months anyway, because I’m not a heavy user. i.e. I can buy a new iPhone with contract a few months after the Euro launch, and it won’t have cost me much different to being on an Apple O2 contract from the start.

I’m pretty sure Apple will at least provide a way to readmit unlockers to with-contract good status after the European launch anyway.

I even like the fact that his whole episode provides a nice test to see how Apple handles such an event.

Finally there’s a reasonable chance that even if an upgraded version is out, this one will sell at a premium on eBay if unlocking still hasn’t been solved.

You could “hack” your Bimmer’ engine to run on methane (using corn or manure), but I doubt if BMW would be willing to honor the warranty if the engine got damaged.

However, other BMW owners wouldn’t give you any sympathy for doing something that stupid.

These are poor analogies as a cellphone is not a car. If however you really want to carry the car analogy, it feels as ridiculous as if Ford told it’s customers to only use Exxon fuel in the car and the radio must be only Kenwood?

If the owner can not install applications at his pleasure, is the iPhone a smartphone or a regular dumbphone with pretty colors?

Let the lawsuits begin

Users planning class action suit against Apple over iPhone warranty

By Justin Berka | Published: ArsTechnica October 01, 2007 - 09:31AM CT

As expected, the reaction to the iPhone-breaking 1.1.1 firmware has been quite strong, with owners of hacked iPhones being particularly teed off. But as it turns out, Apple’s policy of refusing to honor the warranty of hacked iPhones may be hurting owners of pristine iPhones, too. We’re hearing that bringing any kind of bricked iPhone into an Apple Store is being taken as an admission that the phone was unlocked or otherwise hacked, leaving people with legitimate complaints out in the cold. As a result, a class action lawsuit over iPhone warranty refusals seems to be brewing on Apple’s discussion boards.

Granted, a few forum posts seeking more members for the suit doesn’t amount to much yet, but the posts could lead to something bigger if enough people respond. There are three proposed classes for the suit, covering the various degrees of iPhone hacking. Class one is made up of anyone who was refused service because they accessed the iPhone’s flash storage but didn’t install applications, including anyone who used software like iToner. Class two is made up of more adventurous iPhone owners, who have installed third-party applications and were subsequently refused service for a hardware issue. Finally, class three is anyone who fully unlocked their iPhones, restored it before getting service, but still got denied.

Although many people have weighed in on how they feel about the issues, I’m not sure how many of those users are actually part of any of the classes above. All three classes require some degree of hacking, which many people realize might hurt their chances of getting service. Nonetheless, I’m sure we’ll see a class action suit over the warranty refusals before long. I think it will first involve owners of unhacked iPhones that have had problems, and then one from unhappy hackers.

Ambulance chasing lawyers. *yawn*

IMHO, a fundamental problem is that Apple’s getting so popular that it’s attracting enthusiasts (such as hackers and power users) more than ever before.  But I’m not sure Apple’s ever been big on enthusiasts, aside from those who buy their Mac Pros and Cinema Displays. 

We have a “culture clash” on our hands here that the enthusiasts never noticed was there until they started actually buying Apple stuff.  I mean, did Steve Jobs ever envision the iPhone doing such things as being used as an NES emulator or an unlocked phone?  Somehow I doubt it.  “Cocoa for iPhone” doesn’t seem to fall into the “easy to use” category.

IIRC, one of the big PR wins for the iPhone was the acknowledged value in Firmware updates sent out by Apple over iTunes.  The iPhone was going to be the first phone with substantial after sales software maintenance and upgrades.  Apple would be able to add functionality easily because the UI was touchscreen and the firmware/software was easily upgradeable.  No one but MS will be able to match this for awhile, and even MS doesn’t have the reputation of seamlessly updating its software over the Internet.

The firmware PR mess is threatening to derail one of Apple’s strategic advantages in the mind of consumers.  Consumers are hearing that Apple iPhone updates are bricking phones.  They should be hearing that Apple updates work flawlessly, bring new functionality, and gracefully relock your phone.

Apple should have taken another month to figure out how to gracefully relock phones.  They should have even worked with the unlock Dev Teams and the other unlocking groups/companies to avoid this pain for their customers.  I don’t think those unlock companies would have begrudged cooperating with Apple to gracefully undo their hacks.

Geez, Apple, protect your brand is all we ask.

Intersting post about the technicalities of iPhone update.

So maybe Apple is not wilfully evil and really cannot take care of hacked iPhones.

State of the iPhone

While I certainly agree that this could have been handled better from a PR perspective ... I have a feeling there are pieces of the puzzle that are not yet revealed and will make the current steps make more sense.

I am sure AT&T as well as other carriers are pressuring Apple to make sure the unlocking is stopped ... and I think most would agree this is necessary.

Regarding 3rd party applications, this seems to be the aspect that is causing the most angst.  There were already many applications available ... if Apple waits for another couple months for the 1.1.1 update, they risk ticking off far more people.

What if Leopard also brings an iPhone SDK? ... where Apple approved applications could be downloaded via the ITS? (like iPod games).

Re-locking and removing 3rd party apps is not the problem. Bricking iPhones because of an official iTunes supplies upgrade, when those iTunes upgrades are one of the strategic advantages of the iPhone, is the problem.

Graceful re-locking and un-hacking would have been a PR win, even if some griped about losing their apps and unlocked SIM, and it would have reinforced the strategic advantage that only Apple has the reputation of providing seamless, high quality software upgrades for your consumer devices.

But, maybe I’m wrong, and Apple doesn’t really care if people start to lose their trust in Apple’s iPod and iPhone software upgrades.  Or maybe this is an aberration that will soon be forgotten after two or three seamless iPhone upgrades. 

Apple made it clear before the upgrade that they wold not deliberately do anything to block third party apps, but the upgrade did so anyway. Obviously Apple’s engineers knew this would happen but weren’t about to go out of their way to prevent it. I think what angers the unlocking community the most is Apple’s changing the ground rules by shifting the subsystem so the previous methods didn’t work. It becomes more a cat and mouse game, and one which may go on perpetually — or at least for the two years of ATT’s contract.

The best solution, and least likely, would be for ATT to so vastly improve their network that unlockers would want to switch back. The price doesn’t seem to be the issue, it’s coverage, network speed, customer support, etc. that make users want to switch to T-Mobile. The bottom line is that a lot of America does not have good ATT coverage; especially rural areas that other carriers seem to be able to reach. I know ATT bought Dobbins Cellular One, but they haven’t incorporated it into their network. Where I live, that would be a big boost to adoption of iPhones.

Of course the third party apps were really getting useful and many users didn’t want to relinquish them. That is in Apple’s court and they need to start acknowledging the usefulness of many of them, and acknowledge the many developers who are working to fill the iPhone’s gaps.

[quote author=“willrob”]<snip>
I know ATT bought Dobbins Cellular One, but they haven’t incorporated it into their network. Where I live, that would be a big boost to adoption of iPhones.
<snip>
.

Yep, that is a big point of contention here. AT&T is <70 miles from here, but not here. I talked to them, and they said that they do not pre-announce where-when they are “Setting up towers” but I would probaby know about a week before they started offering service here. Dang, that sure makes me want to hang on and wait for them sorry bit###s until I can get an iPhone.  NOT!!!

[quote author=“willrob”]Apple made it clear before the upgrade that they wold not deliberately do anything to block third party apps, but the upgrade did so anyway. Obviously Apple’s engineers knew this would happen but weren’t about to go out of their way to prevent it. I think what angers the unlocking community the most is Apple’s changing the ground rules by shifting the subsystem so the previous methods didn’t work. It becomes more a cat and mouse game, and one which may go on perpetually — or at least for the two years of ATT’s contract.

...

Of course the third party apps were really getting useful and many users didn’t want to relinquish them. That is in Apple’s court and they need to start acknowledging the usefulness of many of them, and acknowledge the many developers who are working to fill the iPhone’s gaps.

Speaking from a software (and systems) development viewpoint: Every post from the “angered” unlocking community about this on the web seems to totally miss the point.

Just because Apple is “shifting the subsystem” doesn’t mean that they are arbitrarily doing this simply to disable 3rd party apps or to mean-spiritedly ‘brick” locked or 3rd party app modified iPhones.

If Apple’s engineers were just a little bit less mean-spirited (as many people seem to have decided), they would have simply done…. what…?

Left the old subsystem in place and then made all of the other improvements on top of it?

That would mean that as time went on; and more and more 3rd party apps mods came to owe their existence and functionality to the “old” subsystem; Apple would find themselves unable to break away and implement a newer, better subsystem. Maybe something that’s more secure, or faster, or better in other internal ways that you and I don’t get to know about. (Which is, in fact, at least part of what seems to be true about the new iPhone software)

If Apple were to worry about testing the iPhone “subsystem” against 3rd party application installers, 3rd party applications, etc. and state responsibility for not breaking any of that with whatever changes they feel necessary to improve the iPhone, then face it: the iPhone would stagnate.

Does any of this ring a bell?

Can anyone spell “Window s”?

If Apple were to take responsibility for not breaking existing 3rd party functionality, they would be just as “stuck” as Microsoft has been, for years, with Windows having to support a legacy base of code and drivers. All dependent on the past. Where did legacy support get them? Years and billions down the drain, to arrive at: Vista. What else needs to be said?

Apple -has- to “own” the phone, and the internals, and the state of the phone, and they need to be able to move it quickly, to improve it. They cannot afford to have their hands tied by the notion that… well, they can’t do “this”, because it will break 3rd party applications, and they can’t do “that”, either, because it might brick a phone that “this other thing” has been been done to.

Apple HAS to be able to do whatever it wants with the phone internals at this point. This is very early in the game; things are not necessarily stabilized; perhaps there are bigger (internal) changes coming inside the iPhone with Leopard, or perhaps the groundwork has already silently been put into place by the 1.1 update. And perhaps this was the biggest part of the “no 3rd party applications at this time” stance on the initial iPhone release.

But to have holds, or delays, imposed on iPhone development and enhancement because of 3rd party external hacks? (including installation of 3rd party apps)? Not a chance.

This is exactly what Apple needs to do, in order to rapidly develop and enhance the new iPhone platform. Anyone who doesn’t like it simply shouldn’t buy an iPhone. Don’t like it? Sorry. Get something else.

It is not a phone, people. It is a computer, and an operating system. It’s Apple’s, not yours. When you buy an iPhone, you buy the ability to hold it in your hand and use it the way that Apple designed and implemented it, and that’s what you clicked through and agreed to when you bought and activated it. Apple can (and should!) do whatever they need to the iPhone platform, as quickly as possible, and this does not include time or resources spent locating, testing, and identifying what unauthorized apps or hacks an update or significant change to the iPhone software might break.

If Apple wants or needs to make change(s) that would break something, what are they supposed to do, not make the changes, or spend more time/effort working around the problems, which are not Apple’s problems? This can NEVER work.

As a software engineer, this is obvious to me, but the anti-Apple anti-bricking stance over this from the “angered” community of 3rd party modifiers and hackers simply ignores reality.

One more thought on the irony of this. When the initial iPhone software was hacked, broken into, and 3rd party apps/mods started to appear… do we remember all the sneering and FUD-chest-beating in the press ? The iPhone wasn’t secure. It was too easy to break. There would be viruses, a world filled with iPhones would come to an end, that sort of nonsense. As it turned out, the world didn’t end, and children were still able to sleep safely at night for the weeks that such an insecure, hackable iPhone was being used by up to one million new users or more.

Now, the iPhone software update just so happens to make it MUCH more secure and unhackable than the original version. That should be a good thing, shouldn’t it? Because it’s so secure (which is “good”; in fact, better than good, “great”). But: uh oh…. it also defeats jailbreaking the iPhone, which, for unauthorized 3rd party app development to date, is “bad”.

In this context, doesn’t it start to become a little bit easier to see why Apple’s stance HAS to be the way that it is?

I can’t believe the hysteria about this issue is still running this strong. Wake up and get a sense of perspective…