What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
93 Comments
- o0joshua0o, on 10/24/2007, -0/+20Apple needs to lovingly embrace these iPhone hackers instead of fighting them. Otherwise, the scenario will start to resemble the absurd cat and mouse game between Sony and PSP hackers.
- izzybr, on 10/24/2007, -1/+17Not all kids are the same, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the 12-year old mental range.
If you define the '12-year old mental range' as someone who is imaginative, creative, and daring, like many 12 year olds are, I think most developers and users of the iphone would be happy to be in that category.
If you define the '12-year old mental range' as someone who uses poor grammar to attack the mental faculties of others, like some other 12 year olds are, I would suggest you fit into that group rather well, while most users and developers don't - inactive, on 10/28/2007, -5/+19Apple sucks for locking a phone to one carrier.
- theheyes, on 10/24/2007, -2/+16Its hardly "250,000 unlocked iPhones have been sold", they dont sell them unlocked. They mean 250,000 havent signed up with AT&T...
- inactive, on 10/25/2007, -6/+18@OS2Guy
I bought the iPhone at Apple. It is legal to hack it and bring it to another carrier. In fact there are laws protecting my right to do so. Why are you fighting for locked phones and locked plans? You realize that not everything Apple, Inc does is good right?
You have Stockholm Syndrome, plain and simple - izzybr, on 10/23/2007, -4/+13How exactly is it that "These people are killing the Apple iPhone for the rest of us" It seems to me that the development community is making the iPhone even better by adding more applications to be used on it.
Also, your $66,000,000 calculation is, presumably, for a two year contract, so it would be 33 for one year. The iPhone has been on sale for what...5 months or something and they've already made $100,000,000(gross) on the sale of iPhones w/o an AT&T account. From an economic standpoint, Apple reasonably stands to make more money by opening up sales. That is to say, they will probably make more money per year on selling iPhones w/o an account than they would receive in revenues from AT&T, or at the very least, make the same amount of money while taking market share from other cell phone manufacturers, which is in itself valuable if you can retain the customers. I certainly would've bought one if I could use it with my carrier, and I'm not alone - penguinpc, on 10/23/2007, -1/+9Apple terminating your warranty for hacking the phone is understandable. Apple bricking your phone for hacking it is not so understandable.
- thegreyfox, on 10/23/2007, -2/+8Yawn. Call me when we start bitching about world peace.
- SirZRX, on 10/23/2007, -3/+9greedy bitch GTFO of digg
- blackanode, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7You fail dear sir and just don't get it. Have fun living in corporate land where you life is dictated by companies with large pocketbooks looking out for their interests while, screwing you over.
Tool - pyrates, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7I choose not to read the license agreement and do not agree to it. Does Apple still refuse to sell it to me? Nope. A contract has to be signed and agreed to. I did neither. I love my hacked unlocked iphone. Are you going to report me now? Come on, I dare ya.
- ggore, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7Apple made the agreement with AT&T, good or bad, I'm over it and everyone else should get over it. It's fact, just as much now as when the phone came out. People bought the phone (including me) knowing it was tied to AT&T, who have every right to protect their contract with Apple, so what these "hackers" did THEMSELVES to their phone was their OWN responsibility, NOT Apple or AT&T's fault, since it involved doing something TO the phone that it was NOT designed or sold to do. End of subject. I'm over the whining and bitching about this subject.
- colincornaby, on 10/24/2007, -4/+10You know, Apple did tell everyone "If you unlocked your iPhone, don't install 1.1.1...."
- colincornaby, on 10/24/2007, -2/+7So now you're saying they should be keeping track of all the methods that have been used to unlock their phones and specifically check for them? It's really not Apple's problem. If you have decided to take the responsibility of hacking your phone, you should be the one to check and make sure a new firmware is going to work on your phone. That is your responsibility for your action, not Apple's.
- FrozenJackal, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6who’s to say that the 250,000 iphone users would have purchased the iphone if they couldn’t have unlocked the phone. If anything the people that made the programs to unlock the iphone should get a share of apples profit from the purchase of the phone. Not to mention apple raped the early adopters with the 200 dollar price cut. I could care less if apple is missing out on 11 dollars a month from my t-mobile contract. I was never going to get an att contract so no loss for apple only profit in my eyes.
- TheUngod, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6The article should have just said "250,000 iPhone users are happy with their purchase"
- catalysis, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5That's not stockholm syndrome. We are talking about luxery consumer electronics here, not a life threatening hostage situation.
- inactive, on 10/24/2007, -7/+11I agree with OS2Guy, except for the part about Apple intentionally bricking people's phones. If you screw around with your firmware on any hardware, you are playing with fire. And what's more, Apple warned people about the possibility of bricking and yet the 12 year olds did it anyway and turned around and tried to blame Apple for it. Huh? How does that even begin to make sense.
If you run a red light and crash your car, does the government owe you something? Yes, you own your car and probably paid lots of money for it and should be able to do whatever you want with it, but there are limits on freedom. The same thing applies to the iPhone. Apple told everyone that the phone would only work with AT&T 10 MONTHS AGO. They told everyone that it would not support third party apps. They told everyone that unlocks would not be officially supported (And no, there is nothing in the DMCA that says a company has to unlock your phone, they just can't sue you for doing so). Apple warned everyone that the 1.1.1 update would mostly brick unlocked phones. And what did most of you guys do? You ran the red light anyway. Stop whining and take responsibility for your actions. Or go buy something open like the TMobile Sidekick. Oh Wait... - scbysnx, on 10/24/2007, -3/+7If they offered the option of not upgrading then its the users fault. The user has no right to safety at the cost of others not getting an upgrade and its not apples job to check for programs that they didn't license.
- superkendall, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4No, because web browsing is held up more by latency of connections than by speed. 3G is faster to download content but not that much faster bringing up and tearing down connections.
Google maps is very usable on EDGE, and browsing sites without a ton of graphics or issuing lots of connections is not bad at all either. And really, I personally spend a lot of time near a WiFi source anyway so often checking quick things really is quick.
Even sending images out over EDGE (via email) doesn't take all that long... - kdjsmith, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3There's only one problem with that analogy - Sony wasn't locked into a contractual agreement with AT&T, the context of which I'm sure pretty much guarantees AT&T a 1:1 subscriber-to-sale ratio. Liken this fight to, say, Apple trying to keep FairPlay locked down against apps like jHymn, where Apple has a third party (the music industry) contractual agreement that sold music won't be uploaded or otherwise shared.
- sholt, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Software, and especially free software, always has far more downloads than actual users.
- lupka, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3I don't even have an iPhone, but I love this because I hate AT&T.
- cylon99, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4"Eh, that's... very kind of you, considering you are a mysterious party crasher. You are most troublesome, for a security guard."
- izzybr, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3'Are we splitting hairs here? They're nihilists dude.'
Sorry, I just use Big Lebowski quotes any time I can. You are splitting hairs though. It's not like there are 250,000 iPhones people are just using as iPods. - kkiran, on 10/25/2007, -5/+8@ OS2Guy : I doubt if you have an iPhone but how good is a product if it does not support its main feature - CALLING - ATT is sloppy in some areas and how can someone use it - hence T-Mobile comes to the rescue :)
We don't care about your investment in Apple, all we care is technology and yeah, Apple rocks but if they want to brick our $400 iPhones, we are ready to fight back. Watch out before calling 12 yr olds ***** cos' we all know who is one!
My iPhone is unlocked and I love Apple! - pyrates, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4Then why did Apple change springboard to not show any third party apps with the new firmware? They had to intentionally do it, no other way around it. Sure they could have just reset the plist file that showed the applications, but they had to hardcode springboard to only show their apps. What does that tell you? They are actively fighting the hacking done on the iphone.
Don't even get me started on Apple stopping you from putting your own custom ring tones on the iphone. I should NOT have to pay for part of a song for a ring tone when I've already paid for the whole song. That is just plain greed. All the other cell phones I've had, have had the ability to put any song as a ring tone for free without paying for that song again. - nevenmrgan, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3More specifically, Apple is *guessing* that 250,000 were bought with the *intent* of being unlocked. Just nitpicking.
- sholt, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3To be fair, I would like to put public domain or CC-licensed sounds on my phone for ringtones. There's no legal reason why I shouldn't be able to do that.
- dagamer34, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2The odd thing is since when does the installation of software cause voiding of warranty on hardware? If the screen breaks, do you think it's because I hacked it? Laws protect consumers from manufacturers controlling consumers and their products. And lastly, your warranty on your iPhone doesn't even START, until you've activated it, regardless of if it's been hacked or not. Seems kinda BS to me!
- Jholder112233, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2You're assuming that the 100,000,000 in revenue was total profit... which it wasn't. They had to build and research the device first...
- sam10685, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Apple doesn't care. They just want their $399.
- abandonedhero, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3Buried for surfing digg at work.
- madmage, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4"...If they had bothered to look at the hacks themselves (enough to be able to warn people about the risks, which they did)..."
"...And yet they released it anyway, without any real warning..."
inner conflict much? - SillyKary, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Hey Mr. Shareholder, over 20 of those 250K are mine. I unlocked them and sold them to countries were there is neither an "official" iPhone nor AT&T service. I created about $10,000 revenue to improve the performance of your shares. Revenue you would not have made without me and my unlocking.
Just saying. - sholt, on 10/24/2007, -8/+10you.... really haven't been keeping up on the iPhone unlocking news, have you?
Both of the unlocks available then were hacks and unsafe in different ways. Apple bricked nothing intentionally. - willrix, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2headline bust
- dagamer34, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I think you need to go check eBay pal. Plus, firmware 1.0.2 made it incredibly easy to unlock, it's just that firmware 1.1.1 needed more work. However, I did it last Thursday in about an hour, you just have to read the directions.
- djtrip, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I love how everything is always Canada's fault....... Anyways, I do in fact know several people in Canada with iPhone's that are unlocked. Of course you can't really place blame on Canadians for taking such a route since Apple always seems to forget about us. We still don't have the iPhone, TV Show's on the iTunes Music Store or .Mac offered at $99 a year with a stronger dollar (it's $139CDN) so it serves Apple right if most of the unlocks are coming from North of the American boarder.
- FreeiPodGuy.com, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1While "The vast majority of people don't even have the technical knowhow to even understand what unlock means", we are not talking about "people" in general or even cell phone users in general. We're talking about iPhone buyers, who are likely to be far more savvy than the average joe.
- schroeder, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Why would someone collect a bunch of iPhones, unlock them, and not use them?
- diggmaddy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Inaccurate title. It is "According to Apple: 250,000 sold iPhones have been unlocked". Huge difference. OPs title is too good to be true :D (which means Apple sells unlocked iPhones)
- Ireland, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1$100,000,000 is sales, that's not to be laughed at.
- Otto, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1>>>"So now you're saying they should be keeping track of all the methods that have been used to unlock their phones and specifically check for them?"
No, but if you're going to flash a chip with new software in a way that could potentially brick the thing, then it would make some minor sense to read the chip first to make sure that the contents are unchanged from what you expect them to be. Any programmer worth a damn would know that, and Apple's programmers should have had more sense than that. You simply don't flash hardware blindly, that's how you make bricks. - cave, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1"- Vegeta, what does the scouter say about unlocked iPhones?"
- eltomate, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Hmm, title is a convenient 'rewording' of the article content. More accurately "According to Apple: 250,000 iPhones Sold Have Been Unlocked"
- sholt, on 10/24/2007, -3/+4It's funny... when MS refuses to update a system with security patches because the copy is not genuine, the security community gets pissed because it leaves known holes open in the wild.
And, here you are, suggesting that Apple refuse to update their software and consequently block all unlocked phones from accepting future security updates.
Now, I propose that there is no clear answer in this case, but which does more harm in the long run? Their options are:
1) Potentially disable the phones of people who willfully modified and possibly damaged their baseband firmware (removing Apple's responsibility to support them), and then willfully ignored both warnings (press release, and at the top of the update agreement before installing 1.1.1).
2) Silently refuse to update their phones, leaving known software vulnerabilities open on their devices.
Bonus question: Which is the better option and why? - ssttuu, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Call 17% of the product base a few bad apples? Pun intended!
- scmiles, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1What idiot came up with the math on this study, "Well if it was sold and not activated with AT&T, then it must obviously be activated with some other carrier." Okay Mr Wizard, I guess it can't possibly be still sitting in the box!
- FreeiPodGuy.com, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Why talk about what cannot be achieved? World peace can exist only where self-interest does not, and where mutual goodwill is universal, i.e., not on this planet.
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is