Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Apple's Not 'Bricking' Hacked IPhones for Revenge
wired.com — Many people seem to think Apple is deliberately "bricking" hacked iPhones with a software update as payback for users having the temerity to hack the devices.
gdiener- 1217 diggs
- digg it
- reallydigginit, on 10/13/2007, -12/+55Actually makes sense. Hope it's true. I've been hating pretty hard on Apple lately.
- mglmouser, on 10/10/2007, -26/+19I doubt very much there wasn't an incentive for their R&D to lock 'em for financial reasons. i've known Apple and Jobs for too long for it to be a fortuitous consequence of things.
Either way, I sent Apple & Steve a letter on the subject and have removed stickers off my vehicles. The Apple I used to defend and promote is gone.- sethisastud, on 10/10/2007, -14/+27you know steve jobs??? please introduce me!
As for the stickers...I bet that hit them hard!!- mglmouser, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17I didn't say personally. But I've been closely following everything Apple since 82 and have 20 years professional experience on the Mac. I know what's he been doing all these years. And that's pure egoistical control over everything.
- sethisastud, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6I was 1 in '82. Just thought I'd throw that in.
Since you know what he's been doing for the past 25 years, what was he doing last night? - TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15sleeping
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I never thought that bricking iPhones was a malicious move, so much as a financial one. If people can buy an iPhone but select a carrier other than AT&T, then the partnership with AT&T begins to collapse. Also, it means that Apple starts to lose control of the platform, since other wireless carriers don't have iPhone servers that Apple can server content through.
- dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Steve Jobs never sleeps. He just stays up and talks to Chuck Norris about kicking ass.
- lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It makes sense that all the bricking is incidental. A bricked iPhone, whether previously hacked or not, is bad for business. Why in the Hell would Apple want their products to suddenly be non-functional, under any circumstance? It wasn't part of their plan.
- sethisastud, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6I was 1 in '82. Just thought I'd throw that in.
- peestandingup, on 10/10/2007, -11/+16Damn straight.
Apple Computer, Inc
Born 1977
Died 2007
- mglmouser, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17I didn't say personally. But I've been closely following everything Apple since 82 and have 20 years professional experience on the Mac. I know what's he been doing all these years. And that's pure egoistical control over everything.
- sethisastud, on 10/10/2007, -14/+27you know steve jobs??? please introduce me!
- Chewie67, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14I'm shocked that Apple hasn't made an official statement on the subject. They've been getting bashed pretty hard for the past week. You would think they would at least issue a press release saying something like "We're aware of some unintended consequences with the latest update, and we're working to address them as quickly as possible."
Throw us a bone, Apple.- zybch, on 10/10/2007, -11/+15Unintended? Yeah right! There is NOTHING about the addition of wifi iTunes purchasing that should EVER brick only phones that have been hacked!
They're NOT working as quickly as possible to 'fix' any issues, because there are no issues, the 1.1.1 patch worked exactly as designed, to punish people for doing what they want with their expensive devices instead of staying in Apple's small mined ands feature-less walled garden.- TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Look at the release notes, numbnuts. There were more features added than just wifi iTunes, and I can guarantee that there were API tweaks and changes as well. But hey, don't let that stop you from frothing at the mouth.
- TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8It didn't brick all of the unlocked phones, so I think they were just trying to relock it, and the bricking was unintentional, though I'm sure they knew it would have that effect on some. But the patch was mainly to close off hacks and unlocks and ringtones.
- lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You know nothing of business. You're looking at the bricking from a personal, emotional perspective. You think billion-dollar-corporations are run by motives of revenge and punishment? A non-functional product, under any circumstance, is bad for business. It wasn't their intention.
- Chewie67, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It wasn't just hacked phones that were bricked. Brand new, un-hacked phones got bricked as well. That tells me its a bug, not intentional. The last thing Apple would want to do is brick a new customer that just uses the iPhone as a phone.
Mistakes do happen. Not everything that goes wrong has a nefarious purpose behind it.
Oh, and yes, we really did land on the moon.
- zybch, on 10/10/2007, -11/+15Unintended? Yeah right! There is NOTHING about the addition of wifi iTunes purchasing that should EVER brick only phones that have been hacked!
- scootinger, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15"Hacking the iPhone is "an assault on the integrity of (Jobs') artifact," writes pundit Nicholas Carr."
I haven't heard someone that full of ***** in a long time.- Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Looks like someone doesn't read corporate press releases..
- chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Wow, You are really pathetic. Let's not all pretend to be psychics and assume Apple didn't brick phones on purpose because maybe they did. If they didn't they would have made some official announcement about it. It is interesting how low apple fan boys have become to defend apple. Apple is a company that is there to make money. They screwed the early adopters and screwed the 3rd party dev teams which in my opinion did more to sell phones than ATT ever did. Get over it. Apple Inc. is not your savior, they are your drug dealer.
- lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No company, Apple or otherwise, wants to see their products bricked under any circumstance. It's bad for business. This is not a pro-Apple thing. It's a basic business thing. To say that any company, especially one as big as Apple, makes decisions based on punishing people like "chubbybubba" is arrogant, stupid, and naive.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3of course it makes sense - its all apple has ever been. decent technology with horrible software rushed to market in a major advertisement blitz to make it seem to mac fans as bigger than the beetles and jesus combined. also people who bought the first gen ipods and dumped major cash into itunes are also the reason that DRM exists today.
- iamnot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Really? I thought the iPhone was a large step forward in the evolution of cell phone design and technology. I thought that all the other phone companies that have been churning out derivative versions of their old designs thought so too and have started rifting on the iPhone design. I thought that people liked them because they are beautiful and well engineered. Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions with you insightful post.
/sarcasm- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ip ...
- drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sorry, but I just can't agree. The article goes to great lengths to say that the update affected lots of non-hacked iPhones, etc, and that *both* the original *and* the updated firmware images were hacks...the bigger problem with the updated one being all the encryption/checksumming/etc that made it harder to get into and mess with.
If they went to the trouble of releasing an update that they *knew* would cause problems on iPhones with plain-vanilla firmware, then they're having serious problems with lucid thinking. Who does that? Why release an update that you *know* will break products that are functioning normally. If there was a critical update that fixed some known flaws, and not broken normal, existing devices, then I'd say "sure...they didn't try to brick them on purpose". Right now, though, the best I can say is that they rushed a crappy patch out the door for no apparent reason. If the reason wasn't to try to keep people away from the hacks that are out there, I don't know what it was.
- iamnot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Really? I thought the iPhone was a large step forward in the evolution of cell phone design and technology. I thought that all the other phone companies that have been churning out derivative versions of their old designs thought so too and have started rifting on the iPhone design. I thought that people liked them because they are beautiful and well engineered. Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions with you insightful post.
- damien6669, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hahaha. You said pretty hard on
- mglmouser, on 10/10/2007, -26/+19I doubt very much there wasn't an incentive for their R&D to lock 'em for financial reasons. i've known Apple and Jobs for too long for it to be a fortuitous consequence of things.
- joltguy, on 10/13/2007, -7/+44FTA:
Erica Sadun, a technical writer and blogger at TUAW.com who contributed to an iPhone unlocking application, said Apple's update wasn't designed to disable hacked devices. Just the opposite: Sadun thinks Apple worked hard not to brick iPhones -- even hacked ones.
"It wasn't intentional at all," she said. "If they wanted to brick hacked iPhones, they could have done a much better job of it."
Sadun said the software update disabled some hacked phones because it was a "troublesome update" -- it even caused problems with iPhones that hadn't been touched. "They messed up," she said.- phoomp, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Yup, it's pretty clear that there's nothing malicious about the bricking. Purely accidental, suggesting Apple can't be bothered to write clean code to support their most visible products.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Or Apple can't keep the phone updated and keep hack compatibility.
- TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Except it (allegedly) did brick non-hacked phones as well.
- Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How does the update work? Does the update add code to the OS or does it rewrite it all with a clean OS? If it's the first then no duh, modifying the OS then updating the modified data is a no duh for bricking. If it's the latter then why is the modified OS causing troubles if the update just wiped it all out?
- disti, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Uh.. They aren't really supposed to "keep compatibility" with a hack..
- senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The most absurd thing is that a piece of hardware, which presumably will have many firmware updates, can be permanently disabled to an unrestorable state by a firmware update. Except for the early hardware hacks, most of the people ending up with bricked iPhones only used software hacks. There's no reason a piece of hardware shouldn't be recoverable from a software issue.
- Automatt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You've obviously never developed hardware devices and know nothing about loading firmware
- senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know that the BIOS my PC at least has a restore function in ROM, so no matter what you do to the firmware, it is capable of being restored.
- sholt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You've never bricked a router with an official vendor update, have you? Never mind a PC-BIOS...
- Automatt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You've obviously never developed hardware devices and know nothing about loading firmware
- Acqua206, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hrm, maybe they'll make a Pandora's battery for the iphone, gonna be a pain getting it in though.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Or Apple can't keep the phone updated and keep hack compatibility.
- nonsequitor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Also FTA:
"Everything is certified, everything is encrypted, everything requires a checksum," Sadun said. "Apple wants no one else on the platform. It's a pretty strong statement of that."- samnmax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This really shows what apple's intentions are. I can understand them not wanting to support third-party software at this stage since the OS may still be in flux, but if they were only 'neutral' to hackers they wouldn't require programs to be encrypted.
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's pretty clear the update was purposely bricking phones. They just went overboard and designed the detection of unlocked phones and third party apps like crap, so false positive detection results bricked phones that were not altered. In the end they tried to outsmart 3rd party app developers with intelligent detection, but failed and screwed over their "innocent" customers.
- sholt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Which explains why a large number of unlocked iPhones are still unlocked, just simply unactivated because there's no jailbreak?
- phoomp, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Yup, it's pretty clear that there's nothing malicious about the bricking. Purely accidental, suggesting Apple can't be bothered to write clean code to support their most visible products.
- fiorenza, on 10/10/2007, -21/+3Something tells me Apple is smarter than just doing the equivalent of 'rm -f *'
- jcaino, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8you're right.
rm -Rf /*
- jcaino, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8you're right.
- MrPhultz, on 10/13/2007, -18/+55No bit of reasonable information is going to appease trolls
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Right. How dare anyone speak badly about something they don't like.
- MrPhultz, on 10/13/2007, -7/+6Most trolls don't like something they haven't tried. So suck it.
- MrSarcasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Said by a guy having tux as his icon?... WOW, just efing wow
- Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Obviously your name escapes you.
- dysonlu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Same could be said of fanboys.
- MrPhultz, on 10/13/2007, -8/+2And the same could be said of assclowns.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Right. How dare anyone speak badly about something they don't like.
- deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17Makes sense. From Apple's perspective it makes more sense to give unlockers a chance to return to AT&T or at least sell the phone to someone who will. A bricked iPhone is a one time $200 profit to Apple. A functional phone is $200 plus whatever amount of revenue they get from AT&T over the entire lifespan of the device.
- mglmouser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5At 200$ profit margin, a quarter million phones sold to markets you can't reach is exactly 25millions of profit to users you dont even need to support.
- totorototoro, on 10/13/2007, -8/+49No one with any sense whatsoever really believed it was about "revenge". The blogosphere (and Digg) tends to amplify the whiners and conspiracy theorists. :P
Glad to see that Erica Sadun is so reasonable about it, since a lot of the success of the hacks was due to her hard work.- zeeky, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11i dont think anyone actually thought it was revenge. i and many other people think it was about GREED or PRIDE
- Chewie67, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If anything, it's about contractual obligations. Even AT&T isn't dumb enough to have not seen this one coming. Everyone wants and iPhone, and no one wants AT&T. Hackers will unlock it as soon as possible.
I'm certain there was language in their deal that said, in effect. "Apple must do everything in their power to keep people from unlocking the phone." Apple needed a carrier, so they had to agree to those terms. It would also explain why they don't want 3rd party apps on the phone. Once you have access to the system, it open the floodgates.- zeeky, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2sure, but that doesn't mean they have to destroy 3rd party apps in order to secure the iphone against unlockers, does it? im not even mad at apple for going up against the unlockers because that's where the contract between apple/at&t and the 2 year service contract come in. its for legal reasons. although i would be pissed if they kept battling unlockers AFTER 2 years. but i have no explanation on why they would actually discourage the development of killer iphone apps like TTR, NES, and tinyproxy... i bought this iphone knowing those super fun apps would come out and now that apples hosed them all i guess this phone became just a beautiful pile of... well... baby internet, gps-less maps, and a cell phone.
- Chewie67, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3If anything, it's about contractual obligations. Even AT&T isn't dumb enough to have not seen this one coming. Everyone wants and iPhone, and no one wants AT&T. Hackers will unlock it as soon as possible.
I'm certain there was language in their deal that said, in effect. "Apple must do everything in their power to keep people from unlocking the phone." Apple needed a carrier, so they had to agree to those terms. It would also explain why they don't want 3rd party apps on the phone. Once you have access to the system, it open the floodgates. - Refrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You didn't listen to the speculation filled TWiT podcast for this week. It was pretty sad. Leo Laporte would reference Erica S. for some of his tirade against Apple for purposefully bricking people's iPhones yet he never referenced her statement that it the rate of bricking appeared to be the same for hacked and un-hacked phones.
- Chewie67, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If anything, it's about contractual obligations. Even AT&T isn't dumb enough to have not seen this one coming. Everyone wants and iPhone, and no one wants AT&T. Hackers will unlock it as soon as possible.
- virtualball, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Yup, glad to see people are thinking clearly now. For the past two weeks, people were screaming how Apple bricked their iPhones and how dare they block hacks. It apparently is against the law to upgrade it's security system so people can't unlock anymore. If Apple really wanted to brick your phone, all they had to do is "sudo rm -R /" and be done with it. All they did was give an update that messed with unlocks...
- zeeky, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11i dont think anyone actually thought it was revenge. i and many other people think it was about GREED or PRIDE
- TheRascalKing, on 10/10/2007, -6/+45They are doing it because they hate their loyal customers and America! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! OPEN LETTERS!
- MarcSage, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4still waiting for the google phone to enter the ring......then I am sure the iphone will be open......
- Giovannizero, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19Wow, that was great, it was even better when engadget wrote it two days ago.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/01/a-note-to-both- ...
Hey, but good job wired!- postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wired > engadget
- RaggTopp, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3AT&T are the ones responsible for the phones being "bricked" not Apple.
If people are scared that they might blow several hundred bucks by unlocking their iPhones, they'll just stay with AT&T cause "it just works."
The ONLY ones that benefit from a provider-locked cellphone IS THE PROVIDER. Apple benefits in no way OTHER than the money AT&T is paying them for the contract to keep their phones locked to them.
The simple fact that Apple locked the phones to AT&T should be waking people up to the fact that Apple isn't some happy friendly company that has the interests of it's customers in mind. They are the SAME as Microsoft....a HUGE company, with a LOT of power that they feel free to abuse.
Apple is not the Protagonist, and Microsoft is not the Antagonist. They are BOTH bad guys and good guys at the same time. Such is the way of the huge corporation.
The bricking is certainly intentional, no doubt about that, it's just not for "retaliation" purposes or anything like that.
I GUARANTEE that because iPhones got bricked during the update WAY less people are going to unlock them now. That means their strategy worked and AT&T gets more customers.- iofthestorm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Of course, that's why AT&T has the best WM smartphone lineup of any US carrier *rollseyes*. Most real smartphones can be unlocked through software too. Also, AT&T is required by law to give you an unlock code.
- bobartig, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3People who have no idea what they're talking about love to say "they are the same as microsoft" about apple, as if they're making some really erudite point here. Apple is not the same as Microsoft. Companies much bigger than Apple are not the same as Microsoft. Nobody is like Microsoft. Even in the portable music player space, where Apple is a dominant player, if you compare their global marketshare in PMP's versus Microsofts global marketshare in terms of OSes and Productivity software, M$ has like a 10x greater grip, much higher volume, and much higher profit per unit.
You end up thinking apple is like Microsoft because you can't count.
- HeathInk, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Finally - some rationalism.
- InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26I claim the bricking was unintentional. As a lazy programmer I would neither go out of my way to write code that bricks your phone nor go out of my way to write code that doesn't brick your phone.
- senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I agree. The problem isn't that this update bricked the phones. The problem is the design of the phone itself - that is even capable of being bricked through software is the real problem.
- goofygarber, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24Nobodies nothing was bricked. The meaning of that word has been shot dead - anybody remember when it actually meant BRICKING a device? Disabling features that weren't there in the first place isn't bricking by anyones count.
- phoomp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Some phone actually did end up bricked (in the classical sense). Even unmodified phones.
- stealthboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Back in the day "bricking" meant releasing the magical blue smoke.
- zeeky, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9The new iPhone software closely resembles the software on the iPod touch. But it's hard to know what it looks like in detail because it's very secure. "Everything is certified, everything is encrypted, everything requires a checksum," Sadun said. "Apple wants no one else on the platform. It's a pretty strong statement of that."
"Apple takes a neutral stance," wrote the magazine's Gearlog blog, paraphrasing Joswiak. "They're not going to stop anyone from writing apps, and they're not going to maliciously design software updates to break the native apps, but they're not going to care if their software updates accidentally break the native apps either. He very carefully left the door open to a further change in this policy, too, saying that Apple is always re-examining its perspective on these sorts of things."
yeah, make up your mind... apple lied about maliciously designing software updates to break native apps and they knew it.- CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"yeah, make up your mind... apple lied about maliciously designing software updates to break native apps and they knew it."
source? - peestandingup, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3"source?"
Uhh, the damn 1.1.1 firmware update perhaps?? - TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Locking down your own software so people wont dick around with it and not caring about third party apps are not necessarily in conflict.
- CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"yeah, make up your mind... apple lied about maliciously designing software updates to break native apps and they knew it."
- ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4well how do you write software to detect that there is a specific 3rd party app that unlocks a phone, then sends an error message to the user (meaning that they're update specifically CHECKS for certain apps)? how can you have root control of your own product, and not be able to restore it to it's factory default if it recognizes 3rd party apps, THEN does the update? Apple, are your programmers SOOO *****, you can't figure out how to update a phone w/out bricking it? this isn't accidental, Jobs wants to make an example out of some to discourage others from unlocking. don't believe this pile of ***** that bricking was inevitable, from a programmers stand point, they are full of it.
- themoosejuice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1you dont. you write the os and keep it seperate from the apps. all apps should go in thier own folder like osx. if a app is incompatable with the new os it simply crashes. then its up to the developer to update thier software. this is nothing new people
- MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10who really cares about the motivation behind the bricking? Seriously?
What matters is that its even happening to begin with, so regardless of the speculation actions speak louder than PR efforts and speculation. They brick an iphone = they suck. Its just that simple.- AndrewWiggin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Umm no. You can't expect Apple to go out of their way to program code that weaves around the hacks that people have installed.
I care about their motivation. I want their blessing to hack an iPhone. And I don't want them trying to ruin iPhones.- phoomp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Except, their code couldn't even weave it's way around unmodified phones.
- TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, but they could have easily restored the iphones to 1.1.1 locked again if people brought them into an apple store.
They not only refuse to assist, but take down the serial and put it in the system so it will never be fixable without a hacker finding a way to restore it on his own.
P.S. I'm not pro unlocking. I just want to be able to compose my own ringtones.
- AndrewWiggin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Umm no. You can't expect Apple to go out of their way to program code that weaves around the hacks that people have installed.
- acomj, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12 Apple has a great chance to have a successfull iphone/ipod touch platform. These are great devices screaming for software to make them better. Like the best PDA in the world, all it lacks software.
Instead Apple is going down the "closed console" (xbox, play station, nintendo) way of controlling all the software going onto the device, and taking a cut of every sale. Except worse than a console they're not even selling dev kits to software makers to create software for the iphone/touch. Its very sad in a way, especially for a company that knows better and gives away pretty decent dev tools with there mac computers.
sigh.....- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Apple has a great chance to have a successfull iphone/ipod touch platform"
They had the chance... and they NOW HAVE a successful iphone/ipod touch platform... just not one for hackers- lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank you for being intelligent. Hacker nerds scream bloody murder because they think they are the sole audience for the device, that "everyone" is upset because they can't run hack apps. So, now that they can't play Mario Bros. on their iPhones, their throwing stones at Apple. How arrogant and stupid.
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Apple has a great chance to have a successfull iphone/ipod touch platform"
- AndrewWiggin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4That sourced interview with PC Mag and Greg Joswiak.. didn't he go back and change his mind within hours afterwards? I forget the specifics, anyone got the link on hand?
- MrPhultz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7In comes a flood of uneducated rants about how iPhone software updates work by people who don't know dick about the subject so they can twist things around to where it looks like Apple is malicious.
- Tartled, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8B*llsh*t - Apple took a pre-emptive stike at hackers to fulfill their obligation to AT&T
- cerealman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So they value corporations above their customers.
Good to know. - lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Pre-emptive strike"? Someone needs to step away from the Xbox.
- cerealman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So they value corporations above their customers.
- ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8revenge of the fanboys
- nato64, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18Fantastic article. It's nice to read an article that doesn't immediately call Jobs a fascist and Apple the new Microsoft.
- cerealman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You really don't try hard if you don't think Apple fan-boys haven't written them enough. Apple screwed up and should be held accountable.
- lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple screwed up = yes
Apple intentionally bricked their own products = of course not
- lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple screwed up = yes
- cerealman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You really don't try hard if you don't think Apple fan-boys haven't written them enough. Apple screwed up and should be held accountable.
- LinuxGalore, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Music= Pink Floyd "Another Brick in the Wall"..... Hey Apple leave us hackers alone.
- sostoudt, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4ok it makes since that apple didnt brick it intentionally but had no doubt that it would become non-functioning but i do think they did get revenge by refusing to fix your bricked iphones at the genius bar
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5THEY TOLD YOU NOT TO HACK THE PHONE! They warned you... they prepared you... they told you what to expect and now you want their support after you go against their advice! Sorry if I don't sympathize with your situation.
- monikerd, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5yes, it has entirely nothing to do with making money from exclusivity contracts. People at Apple are saints.
- lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There's a place for all the hacker nerds out there. It's called the "PC world." Leave us fanboys in our Mac world, and head over to the PC world and you can hack anything and everything to your heart's content. You can make your own mutt computers and other devices and giggle with glee that you can play Mario Bros. on your phone.
- sdlvx, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3You guys are right. Apple didn't do it intentionally. I mean, it's not like they're some sort of corporation.
Apple wants to make a better user experience, not by better coding, or increased security, but by locking down the devices so you can't mess them up. If you do "mess them up", Apple will take the liberty of making sure it's just flat out not worth your time but not caring if they brick your iphone or not.
The more power Apple gets, the more you're going to see this philosophy take hold on software. It's going to be a grim age, with the populace on locked down systems, paying for expensive proprietary solutions to things that were once easily available and usually free. The geeks and the technically inclined will be in Linux, while the rest of the world is locked down.
Microsoft knows this strategy is going to work. I recall reading about M$ selling parts of their OS, like, you could buy "modules" which would do specific things.
Limiting freedom is the ultimate way to ensure security and safety.- TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3So Jobs == Bush?
- Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1According to his post, Jobs is Bush, Gates, Satan and Hitler combined in one kitten-stomping fascist package.
- TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3So Jobs == Bush?
- blatzkowitz, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Blogs like these make me laugh. Since when did other bloggers and magazine editors become sources? I'll have to remember that for my next research paper =
- EliteMacFreak, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9This article has its head up its ass. Here's the #1 reason why people like Leo Laporte believe that Apple deliberately broke the iPhone: Apple could (and should) have done a checksum on the firmware, and if it didn't match their spec, refuse to update it. As an senior-level ECE student at the University of Illinois with a fairly decent grasp of IA-32, C, & C++ programming knowledge, I'm highly inclined to agree. Not only is it easy to do, it's good practice. You know that they did their own internal testing on the hacked iPhones, which is why they released that "uh, this *may* brick your iPhone"--in reality, they knew it would.
The whole part that claims that Apple could have done a much better job of bricking hacked iPhones obviously hasn't done a bit of research--a lot of these phones (for the time being) are essentially non-functional, even if with the 1.0.2 firmware hack. While I'm sure that hackers will eventually figure out how to restore these now-dead iPhones, the damage has already been done. I personally know Apple loyalists, who, given a little bit less self control, would like nothing more than to smack Steve jobs upside the head for what they see as the second blatant kick in the balls in a month.- totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9I love all the backseat programmers claiming they know how to do everything better, and how things should be done correctly. Why aren't they out making their own iPhone, instead of bitching about what "Apple should do"? The Moko Linux phone is available and ready.
If you don't like what is out there, go do it yourself. You obviously have superior "skillz", and know exactly what happened. Go out and make sure it doesn't happen again. Unless you just prefer sitting in the backseat, telling everyone ELSE they have their heads up their asses? :p- TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You do realize that there is a difference between designing hardware and designing software for hardware, right?
What he says is very basic, and most programmers would think to do so as a simple precautionary step, that is, if they didn't want to break hacked phones
- TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You do realize that there is a difference between designing hardware and designing software for hardware, right?
- totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9I love all the backseat programmers claiming they know how to do everything better, and how things should be done correctly. Why aren't they out making their own iPhone, instead of bitching about what "Apple should do"? The Moko Linux phone is available and ready.
- kjr07, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I have a problem with this blogger's argument in regards to Jobs' motivation behind closed products.
"But it's a little-reported fact that Jobs and the Mac-development team nixed expansion slots to maintain the computer's stability. [...] The decision had nothing to do with preventing users from messing with the integrity of the artifact."
This is semantics. - themoosejuice, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1When I update my ipod, the music is still there. When I update my Mac my tcp settings and apps are all still there. But with the iphone it changes it back to ATT or just bricks it? Sounds like marketing damage control to me. Im not buying the story.
- inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The correct analogy would be "When I update my Mac that has software on it intended to hack parts of the OS...."
Guess what? If you have some OS hacks in place on OS X when you update, you can screw your machine over royally. There's no difference. Your point doesn't make any sense. - maverick808, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even if you hack your OS X desktop installation and an update breaks it then you can just reformat and reinstall the OS. This isn't the case with the iPhone, after you update a hacked iPhone it's bricked.
- inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The correct analogy would be "When I update my Mac that has software on it intended to hack parts of the OS...."
- Jalh, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2should i say that an article should be objective and not subjective ?
- gthrank, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3With all this big brother ***** going on, I think Apple is looking pretty bad. I'll steer clear of an iPhone. I just don't like this attitude of "our way or the highway". Who the hell do they think the customer is here? AT&T or the end user?
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1So, this article is based solely on what a writer on the biggest fanboy site FEELS?
- ericdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It is agreeable that iPods shouldn't be tempered with extra addons because they are essentially just music players. However, iPhone is at least a smartphone, even Steve mentioned it is smarter than most of the smartphones out there, so I would expect it to behave like a smartphone and allow user to add software to it.
- funkinthetrunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I don't own an iPhone, don't really want one, but it seems pretty clear that there will be an SDK, may not be next week or next month, but there will be one soon, Apple isn't stupid. Once they release it, all of the outraged fanboys will go right back to loving El Jobso and Apple again.
I think Apple/Steve isn't addressing it because he knows it's in the pipeline, and that once it's released no one will give a ***** about all of this uproar anymore.- ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, million people buys it with knowing the fact that it is closed to third party (assembly) development, only Web 2.0 things will work. They also sit and write long essays about how right was Apple to break 3rd party stuff and publicise them on respected mags as Wired.
Would you ship a SDK if you were Apple and allow 3rd parties like Real Networks, Microsoft (yes!), Amazon to rival you on your own device?
How many people returned their devices when they figured the third party support will never happen? 3? 5?
- ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, million people buys it with knowing the fact that it is closed to third party (assembly) development, only Web 2.0 things will work. They also sit and write long essays about how right was Apple to break 3rd party stuff and publicise them on respected mags as Wired.
- BOFH2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I can only wonder why apple fanboys have such a love/hate relationship with apple? I mean long time apple product users(at least the ones I know) do not have such polarized reactions to whatever apple does.
Also, I know people are tired of hearing this but if you do not want to mess up your hardware after you have hacked it - Don't update.- ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or don't buy a Apple iPhone if you are interested in 3rd party applications. There are Symbian, Linux and WinCE devices for that.
I wouldn't buy Sony PSP if I was bugged with the fact that it has no 3rd party official APP support. I bought it as a multimedia/internet device and happily updating firmware when it ships. I enjoy "real" 3rd party applications on a Nokia 9300 Symbian S80 phone which actually has a SDK and complete Nokia support.
Rejecting firmware update on a communication/multimedia device is plain wrong. - slessardjr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think these reactions are from typical windows users who hear about how "AWESOME" apple is. Its almost like ok im fed up with windows software on smartphones, so if this iphone is supposed to be way BETTER than smartphones and apple is supposed to be more "stable" shouldnt it work? I mean come on how many windows smartphones out there are unlocked and never have a major issue like this? well my question is how many of them update like the iphone does. Granted this movement by apple does suck, but was it really that unexpected? Apple only chose AT&T to carry the phone but made the phone a QUAD-BAND phone, almost begging to be unlocked or at some future point, support for any carrier. Its just my opinion
- ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or don't buy a Apple iPhone if you are interested in 3rd party applications. There are Symbian, Linux and WinCE devices for that.
- Archer007, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Sloppy code? Is Apple slowly turning into M$?
- RadiatedAnt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2OOoo he said M$ everybody! see what he did there, he did a funny >_> How insightfull.
- robdazomba, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Wow, a voice of reason makes it to the front page of Digg. The crybaby conspiracy theoriests haven't taken over quite yet.
- macjeffff, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Is Apple supposed to examine all hacks and then assign their engineers to the job of making sure Apple software doesn't conflict with the hacks?
When Apple releases a new iteration of its OS or firmware, it's the independent software manufacturer's job to upgrade their independent software to work with it. Always has been that way, always will be. Why should it be different for hackers? Who, of course, are independent software manufacturers, um, kind of.
Am I missing something here? - mishaco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6dugg for use of the word " temerity " . encapsulates the issue perfectly .
- allfatherblack, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Hmmm... this article reads like another figurative hand-job for Apple.
The difference between Apple users and... ohhh everyone else who uses a different electronic is that, when an update breaks something, "everyone else" calls it as it is; a poorly executed patch broke their *****. Youre really spinning the rhetoric wheel with horse-***** like "troublesome update" (and they put the quotations marks on there for me!) Honestly, Ive heard better from Bush and his spin doctors, and we already KNOW he's lying...
PS Whatever happened to the band Spin Doctors? - inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Amazing that there are still tech journalists out there who will actually talk to people and find out what's going on instead of trying to get out in front of the Overreaction Express. Bravo to the author and Wired Magazine for keeping their emotions in check and shedding some real light on this topic.
- steinerik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I dont believe it was for revenge but it would take them 10 minutes to make a firmware check before updating and bricking unlocked phones. iTunes could refuse to update hacked phones and preventing all this bad publicity.
They knew very well that the update would brick the phones. - scottix, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Being a student in Computer Science I totally understand where updates not tested properly can break things. The only thing I think they got a lot of rapport about is because Apple has been known as the system that isn't suppose to crash or have bugs. They even promote the idea that their system is extremely better than any M$ product (a lot of people have this attitude). I usually always laughed at how misleading those apple switch commercials are. The truth is whatever OS a computer system has it is always shown to have bugs or flaws otherwise there would be no such things as updates. My first reaction when I heard about the iBrick was they did this on purpose but thinking about it more now and hearing reports about other phones being bricked by the update means they really didn't test the software. I would have imagined they would test a hacked iPhone with the update to see if it would break it. I just hope if this is the case that Apple does something to please their customers because I would be very blue if I had an iPhone that cost me $600 used as a paper weight. It wouldn't want me to really buy another product from them if it is going to break.
- testcase, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8You Apple fan-boys never cease to amaze me. No matter what Apple does to you, you can't help it, you gotta figure out some crazy way to make it totally ok that Apple did what they did to you.
You're like a battered-wife, nursing a black eye and sobbing, "I deserved it, I shouldn't have mouthed off! I should have done what I was told... it was all MY fault he hit me!"
You make me wanna PUKE!- BGog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Hey, I'm a fanboy. I love my mac and my ipod but I think they ***** suck for locking down the iPhone and crawling into bed with cell phone companies who's only goal is to screw the customer as many ways as possible. (for example I can't buy ring tones any more.. now I have to RENT them)
So here is one fanboy who says. ***** them for what they are doing. - TheRascalKing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, because charging a buck for a ringtone is alot like beating your wife.
- BGog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Hey, I'm a fanboy. I love my mac and my ipod but I think they ***** suck for locking down the iPhone and crawling into bed with cell phone companies who's only goal is to screw the customer as many ways as possible. (for example I can't buy ring tones any more.. now I have to RENT them)
- BGog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4One thing I'm sick of hearing is the excuse about their "agreements" with the carriers. Quite frankly as a customer I could not care any less for thier agreements or the cell companies. It was a poor ass decision to get into bet with corupt cell phone companies. And all cell phone companies are corrupt and are quite evil to their customers.
It is a sad thing to see Apple, a company with a rep for caring about the customer, to be so blemished because of these agreements. I paid $600 for a phone. Do not tell me what I can do with my phone!!!- Hazardc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4no, you paid 600 for a phone that was designed to work with one network. that was your choice and you knew what you were getting into. stop being a whiny bitch about it.
personally i dont believe the iphone is worth it right now and wouldnt buy one regardless. however, at least im not whining that my phone wont do things it wasnt advertised to do. - Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Another one of the "I paid a lot, so I'm entitled" brigade. You paid approx. 200 dollars for a phone and 400 dollars for hype. You got to show off to all your friends and feel cool when you answered your phone and people saw you with it. *that's* where your money went.
- csixty4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly. I have an offer for the $600 iPhone buyers who feel ripped off over the price drop:
"Here’s my offer: someone who has an iPhone they paid $599 for and is upset about only getting $100 of it back can sell me their iPhone for $499. Between my extra $100 and their store credit, they can buy a whole new iPhone for $399 and have gotten $200 back. But, I want you to arrange for 20 of your friends to be there cheering me on when I hand you the check. I also want you to arrange a rotation of five friends to show up at my house each weekday to gaze awestruck at my new toy and ask if they can touch it. Oh yeah, and I want your sister to ask if she can use it if she sleeps with me. I think that’s worth $100."
So far, no takers.
- csixty4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly. I have an offer for the $600 iPhone buyers who feel ripped off over the price drop:
- Hazardc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4no, you paid 600 for a phone that was designed to work with one network. that was your choice and you knew what you were getting into. stop being a whiny bitch about it.
- thehig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think it is simply poor programming since my wifes untouched, un-hacked iphone ceased functioning after the update. She had to go back to the AT&T store and get a replacement SIM card. The lady at AT&T told her that it was very common that the phone required a new sim card. Go figure.
- Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Apple's so pissed about iPhone hacking they are bricking iMacs too!
- ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So we lost Wired as a technical, respected magazine if one of their "authors" sits and writes a huge Apple apology.
I have no sympathy for people who buys a completely closed device with hopes of "someone will hack it" but "Why Apple did this, why Apple did that" belongs to well known Apple fanboy blogs, not a respected professional magazine domain.
He can start his own daring fireball if he is interested. *Cult of Mac" doesn't mean you should sit down and write as lowest level of mac cult member, it is a TITLE which was invented long before iPod or iPhone. Check mags archives one day, read the tone of articles and how they attacked Apple when Apple took wrong decisions back in the day. - Abomonog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Methinks the hackers should wait for Apple to finish updating the phone before they try hacking it.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by