Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Apple's fight against iPhone unlocks may result in expensive bricks

arstechnica.com — Apple's Steve Jobs said yesterday that the company would actively work against those who perform a SIM unlock on their iPhones. This isn't surprising news, but we believe that the consequences for unlockers could be pretty high.

Bury

FameMoney 336 days ago, made popular 336 days ago

1073 diggs
digg it

176 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

MacPPC, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20uh oh
- Konrad9, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Lame
- monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -23/+5you're damn right, "uh oh."
  Nobody had a damn good reason to unlock the iPhone to use it on another carrier (not even cheaper!), and they're all deserving of owning a $400 (or $600) shiny brick.
  - kenoticc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10 People that live outside the US have a good reason...
  - AnalogAssassin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Yeah, God forbid someone buy something and expect to do what they want with it. Whose equipment is it anyway?
    - pete6677, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Sure you COULD unlock it and use it on another network, but why would you want to? Why not buy any of the other available phones that do the same stuff for half the price? If you want to overpay for the Apple logo, that entails overpaying for the AT&T service. Otherwise those special Apple gadgets like visual voice mail (does anyone really need this?) don't even work.
      
      Now that its been proven that the iPhone can be unlocked, which everyone knew it eventually would be, I can't understand why anyone would actually want to buy one just to unlock it.
    - specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WTF?? You would want to unlock it so you can use it on another network and in another countries....
      
      >> I can't understand why anyone would actually want to buy one just to unlock it.
- signal15, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I don't think they can legally "relock" phones that have been unlocked. However, they most certainly can remove the route people used to get them unlocked in the first place. The result would be currently unlocked phones remaining unlocked, while new phones will need a new method of unlocking.
  - jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4So, you're saying the safe bet is to unlock now, since it might be impossible later. But others say to wait to unlock because Apple might relock/brick unlocked phones, and I should play it safe.
    I'm confused :(
  - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Considering you've never gone to law school, I don't think you have the foggiest idea what the ***** you're talking about. There's nothing illegal about relocking the phone.
TechBharat, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1scaremongering..?.. Devs always have a way out.
Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -6/+108There is no way Apple could directly cause a software update to 'brick' a consumer's iPhone for two reasons.

First of all, as the article states, it is perfectly legal for consumers to unlock their cell phones from their carrier. Apple and AT&T may not like this, but it is within their rights. Therefore, if Apple releases and actively supports a software update which is known to cause 'bricked' phones, they would be legally liable for the consequences. So unless Steve wants to face many civil lawsuits or a class action suit, these threats are empty.

Secondly, think of the PR nightmare this would cause Apple. They were embarrassed enough for just REDUCING the price of their iPhone. Can you imagine the outcry if suddenly hundreds of thousands of iPhones broke by Apple's hands.

Now, certainly Apple can cause updates that may undo the software hacks and try to thwart new ones (which I don't recommend), but by all means, they won't brick anyone's precious iPhone.
- mugdecoffee, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9More like the outcry of just a hundred iPhone users. You seem to forget that most people don't unlock their phones.
  - vemerge, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It's way more than a hundred.
  - lotu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I wouldn't really matter if it was 10 or ten thousand users that got bricked, it would get picked up by the main stream media. The media loves to run stories about apple and they won't care if only a few people are affected. If they can try scare you in to thinking that apple could brick your iPhone at anytime for any reason they will.
- berb, on 10/10/2007, -18/+10"Therefore, if Apple releases and actively supports a software update which is known to cause 'bricked' phones, they would be legally liable for the consequences"
  No. For the same reason that Sony is not held responsible if you accidentally brick your PSP while trying to flash your firmware.
  Apple can only be held responsible for the product's faults if you're using it 100% as directed in the manual.
  - berb, on 10/10/2007, -17/+5Dunno why I'm at -2 diggs, I'm right. I guess that personal opinion of many of you blocks the truth.
  - Aremith, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11It's because in the US, you are legally allowed to unlock your phones. If the software update is made to relock it and your phone is bricked, then it IS their fault and they are liable
  - witcompe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6You are going into negative diggs because a Sony PSP is not protected by law like an iPhone is. It is completely legal to unlock a mobile phone, not so much for a hand held video gaming platform. You are comparing two completely different technologies.
  - SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You're being dug down because you're wrong. If you brick your PSP or iPhone while flashing, you should be at fault. If Sony or Apple comes along behind you, after you successfully flashed your device, and that purposely causes it to brick then they are liable, if they cause it to lock again, that's a different story, you'll have to find a way to unlock it again. The main difference here is, if you brick it while attempting to unlock it, or if it becomes bricked due to a countermeasure from the manufacturer. Also the two comments above explain the new rules in the U.S. allowing you to circumvent locking (3-year exception to the DMCA).
  - jamima69z, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5you're being dug down because people are tired of reading comments written by persons who obviously don't have a clue WTF they are talking about.
    - thecompkid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Finally, someone gets to the point. I love how people feel they can just spew any crap they want, then somehow validate themselves by posting "IDK why i'm being dugg down, i'm right, dumbasses"
  - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Berb is absolutely right. It's the rest of these Apple apologists and armchair attorneys who don't know what the ***** they're talking about. It is not LEGAL to unlock your phone. All the Copyright Office said was that they recommended regulations so that one could not be sued for copyright infringement under the DMCA for unlocking the phone. All that means is that there is no civil liability for unlocking.
    
    Second, you will most assuredly void your phone's warranty by unlocking it with unauthorized third party software. And, as is the case with most pieces of technology, if you choose to vary from the intended use, you become solely liable for any damage to the device. In this case, should Apple choose to issue an update which, due to its nature, breaks your phone, you will solely be liable. You can cry class action all you want, but Apple is well covered in its indemnity language, and they'd be well within their rights to do so.
- MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9a hundred? err... lets put this into persepctive. There are est. 1 million iPhone users. How about 5% unlock their phone. This has been pretty big lately. That's 50,000 phones right there
  
  100 is only .01% of the iPhone population
  - PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4just wondering where you got the 5% value from
- nexmachina, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2Apple can do what they want with their Hardware, and can get away with it if they want. Just as you said: " it is perfectly legal for consumers to unlock their cell phones from their carrier. Apple and AT&T may not like this, but it is within their rights.", and it's perfectly legal for Apple to brick your phone. End of story. Who has the power to brick your phone? Apple. Who is gonna do anything about it? No one. Why? Cause Apple can do what they want with their hardware, and since the device is tied to iTunes, hell they probably don't even need any special firmware...
  - venom1221, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17its MY hardware since i bought it
    - RobN, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7And it will still be YOUR hardware. Fat lot of good it will do you if nothing will run on it, but it will still be YOURS. Enjoy.
      
      I'm pretty sure YOUR hardware came with a document that said you agree not to do stuff like unlock the phone. If you broke that agreement, all bets are off. Sorry...it sucks, but it's true.
      - jamima69z, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5and i'm pretty sure you're talking out your ass,since i think apples lawyers aren't stupid enough to try to contradict u.s. court decisions with a EULA.
        
        in any case,you did'nt bother to actually check,now did you?
      - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And what US Court decision would that be? lol That's right, because there is none. ***** armchair lawyers.
  - skellener, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1>....it's perfectly legal for Apple to brick your phone. End of story
    
    Um no. They cannot "brick" you phone. They may cause it to NOT work with other carriers, but it must at least still work with AT&T. So no, it is NOT legal for Apple to brick your phone. Only cause it not to work anymore with a carrier other than AT&T. If this is the case, I'll guarantee you there will be patches to simply unlock it again.
    
    Best thing is to simply NOT update your iTunes unless you read or hear of it is safe to do so. Most likely anyone with an unlocked iPhone will be checking this whenever an update is released. If they are smart enough to unlock it, they are smart enough to avoid a harmful iTunes update.
    
    I don't think this will be a big issue.
- dragonmantank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Do you see Nokia and other cell phone manufacturer's bricking phones because someone replaced the SIM? No. Why? The courts have upheld that it is legal to unlock your cell phone. Yes, Apple is allowed to sell a locked phone just like the other manufacturers. Yes, Apple can make it extremely hard to unlock the iPhone. Hell, it's probably in the contract with AT&T that they have too at least try. But to actively kill a phone because it was unlocked? AT&T would see people leaving in droves, no one would by the iPhone anymore (unless they really, really love AT&T or whatever carrier Apple partners with in their country).
  
  This is, of course, based totally on the American way of cell phone sales. In Europe, people are more used to taking their phone from one carrier to another with just their SIM. If Apple doesn't allow this phone to be unlocked, every country outside of the US and Canada will not purchase this phone. This goes for people who frequent other countries as well, as many will just buy a prepaid SIM or have a cell contract in another country, and pop in the appropriate SIM for where they are at. By bricking the iPhone, Apple has now effectively told all those people that Apple doesn't want their business.
  
  (My bad, this is in response to nexmachina, not Salviati)
  - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Um, no court has held that it's legal to unlock your cellphone. Please stop talking out of your ass. And please stop digging people up who don't know ***** about what they're talking about.
    - REBELinBLUE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
      
      The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.
      
      5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
      - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Copyright Office is NOT a court. I don't know why you people don't understand that. And they didn't issue anything saying that unlocking your cellphone was legal. And there is nothing in their statements that say you're entitled to unlock your phone either. All they did was recommend that if you unlock your cellphone, you can't get your ass sued under the DMCA. Its not a court decision. It's not binding. It's completely uinmportant. And you can cite to it all you want, but it in no way supports your argument. It's not a frickin court, and no court in the country has rules that you can unlock your phone with impunity.
    - retroact1ve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0locojones If something is not illegal its legal, until otherwise stated. Its common sense. Stop calling others morons when you yourself are a complete moron.
- thebaron2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It isn't a matter of what they "should" do, or what's legal - what the article states is that the current unlock methods reconfigure the HARDWARE so that it can't be undone via a software reset. So if an update goes in to tweak that hardware, and it doesn't find what it's expecting to, it's not going to act right.
fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -18/+36Hell... the fact that Apple would even enter into this type of contract with any carrier is enough reason to avoid the iPhone.

It's just another form of DRM.
- monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1They're not the first to lock in a deal with a carrier to make the product exclusive. Also, they offer a crazy good deal at $60 a month. If you don't like the deal, don't buy the freakin' phone.
  - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1LOL you dumbass fanbois still don't get it do you? That "crazy good deal" is just an a la carte voice plan and an a la carte internet plan that they stuck together and called the iPhone plan to make you feel special. Everyone who's ever had AT&T before the iPhone had the same thing, at the same price.
    - jaisin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't remember $20 unlimited internet before the iPhone.
      - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's because you're stupid. It's the MediaMax200 plan. 19.99. Always has been, always will.
    - err404, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They did offer it on some devices. Prior to getting an iPhone, I paid $20 for unlimited use on my RAZR (to connect my Laptop via bluetooth). Actually I pay more for the iPhone plan since they no longer honor business rate discounts. But you are correct in that most smartphone pricing is about $40.
- acarr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4talk about DRM look at the frickin iPod!!1....people seem to love that thing for some reason.
  - sail191912, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3A majority of iPod owners outside developed countries don't have access to the iTunes store, so DRM is not a major concern for a lot of iPod owners.
  - Naga10, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4The iPod doesn't have DRM. It can play any standard music file.
    - zybch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2The iPod doesn't have DRM???
      Thats about the most inaccurate comment I've read in a while!
      If it doesn't have DRM then why does nothing purchsed from the ITMS play on any other portable players other than the iPod? Sounds like DRM to be.
      - freaktheclown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Files bought from the iTunes Store have DRM. "The iPod" does NOT have DRM. You can certainly have an iPod with exactly 0 DRM'd files on it.
      - REBELinBLUE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Also inaccurate, a lot of EMI tracks (iTunes plus) are standard mp4 files and so will play on other players which support that format.
    - Molt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The iPod doesn't have DRM in exactly the same way that Vista doesn't have DRM.
      Both have the facility to play DRM'ed files of some description in ways which 'zero DRM support' systems can't, but both can happily play non-DRMed files with no problem too and it's more than possible to have both running without any DRMed files on them.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unless you are fine with having AT&T for a carrier, and live in the US. Considering the big cell companies can be considered "evil" to roughly the same degree (largely canceling any concerns about the company itself out), and T-Mobile (the only other significant US GSM provider) has horrendous coverage in my area, I'm fine with AT&T, and thus the iPhone.
drvelocity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25I think most people intelligent enough to hack their iphones will also be intelligent enough not to install a firmware update until word gets out of success/potential issues.
- luckykpolice, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2how would word get out if they're too smart to update?
- thecompkid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hehe, have you visited the hackintosh forums lately? If these people are iPhone geniuses, then evidently, we can install flash by just going to adobe.com, we can upgrade to 3g by modifying our firmware, and any app that runs on a Mac absolutely must run on the iPhone, because, of course, it runs OS X, right?
woxidu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26buried for FUD
(Never thought I'd say that about Ars... how the mighty have fallen...)
- Repeater2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Leave Steve ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bubba9999, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3I miss Fake Steve Jobs.
- livevil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ahahahah! Apple fanboys, welcome to reality.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Which reality is that? One where people believe that someone with a name like fake Steve Jobs was actually Steve Jobs? Yes, I'm sure many were fooled. Or are you just a foolish troll looking for someplace to leave a stupid comment.
jm1234567890, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Expensive and very thin bricks.
AgentOrn, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Oh "there" iPhones

I am glad to see that even when you buy stuff you don't really own it in the country. Its a move we are seeing more and more from electronics companies more so.
- Avor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It is speaking in a general term for the purchasers of the phone. Their is correct; how the hell else did you expect it to be phrased.
ryanhayn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10this is just some ***** to scare the less smart people into NOT unlocking their iphones.
bbqsalad, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7STEVE JOBS IS A CHEAP HOOKER.
- ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4WHAT! he sure as hell isn't cheap, let me tell u
  - robocop1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1yes he is, he only charged me $5 for a bj the other night
    - Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5But $2300 for the 1 Year AppleCare on that BJ.
- zybch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hes not only a cheap hooker, hes a child abandoning cheap hooker!!
- BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Name me another company that gave you money back when they lowered prices.
  I didn't ask you about WHY they did it, or if they benifit, I asked, you to name me another comapny that did it.
  You can't, its doesn't happen. That make Apple generous, smart, crafty, pick one, I don't care. People got iPhone and said it was worth the price. All was well. Apple lowered prices, and some felt it was unfair. Apple offers them $100 back... all is well, for all parties involved. I don't see the problem.
superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Just the kind of mindless fear-mongering that has no place coming from as technically oriented a site as Ars.
jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11You will need to wear a black turtle neck and jeans to able to operate the iphone.
New update out soon to enforce this...
Boom !!!
PuckHog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Be safe and archive a copy of Itunes 7.41 (the version where you can still make custom user ringtones for free) and NEVER update itunes on this computer. No way they can force firmware upgrades to your iphone that might brick it.
- synthesis811, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1simpy get an older version from filehippo.com if needbe, they have it going all the way back to 4.8
- Nanolight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Hows about this? You buy a ***** Nokia for about 200 dollars less than your BS iPhone and do everything you want with it.
  
  Heres another word that starts with i for you Steve
  iDiot
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah that's a great idea! Then they'll just force an update where your itunes won't work anymore unless you upgrade it. Problem solved.
sirlancelot88, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Everyone! HDR photo of Kevin Rose smoking Weed and using Ubuntu-powered iPhone to call Ron Paul!!!
- Captaffy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14You have summed up Digg in its entirety.
- jonshipman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8you forgot the reason he was calling Paul, to bash Microsoft
- cave, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3...You forgot about the Wii.
- SniperGX1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You missed something outrageous about google and CONFIRMED in front.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1... and talk/rant about the ultimate evil of Microsoft and Fox News.
- zybch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4BREAKING!!!
  - specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1AMAZING!!!
SuperSunny, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2With an unlock, Apple should just be rid of AT&T, and allow customers to use whatever plans they have, whatever sim cards they have, with the iPhone. It would save a big hassle. It really would.
- munter1942, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think youre forgetting that Apple gets a sizeable chunk of AT&T revenue from each customer, every month. They probably earn double from that than they do with the sale of each phone
  - kelly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You're right, but diggers don't want to hear that. They'd prefer to accept the notion that Apple simply likes to include unnecessary barriers to use their products to their fullest potential.
zeropoint51, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I love Macs but the guys at Ars always come off as massive Apple ass kissing fan boys.
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2That's funny... I always regard them as not giving Apple a fair shake.
  - zybch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Thats what all appletrads think.
    - MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Appletrads? If you're going to call someone stupid or a tard zybch, then it might be a good idea to actually reread what you post in case of errors. Otherwise you look like...well...a tard.
MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Are firmware updates required? Cause if not, if you're happy with it now and see no bugs, turn it OFF. If it's required then Apple could be liable for any ***** that happens to the phone.
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, firmware, updates are not required
- BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It is not legal to force anyone to put anything on hardware they own.
  That said, Microsoft breaks the law when they forcfully push updates to your pc, when you automatic updates turned off, and yes, they do it.
kelly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7That's certainly a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt on the part of ars.

This isn't a rumor, it's something ars staff just made up. Wait until there's concrete evidence before claiming Apple's going to destroy everyone's phones.
Alfredosauce, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10I've said it before but...
"Steve Jobs holding a wooden paddle says to the apple customer "bend over bitch!", smack
Apple customer says "thank you sir may I have another!""
maybe now you can see that Apple isn't so great.
- monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yeah, because a complimentary $100 gift card makes a great wooden paddle.
- RickySan65, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They won't, love is blind my friend ;)
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, you said it before and it was just a relevant and filled with high school hijinks (as I'm sure you're still a member of that fine establishment) then as it is now.
Kaervek, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Well, my phone works great after the unlock. If it isn't broken, don't patch it. In other words, if your unlocked phone works the way you want it to, there's no reason to update it any further, anyway.
- Kaervek, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2-diggs? silly.
- LocalH, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You make a valid point, but still it doesn't always apply. If new firmware offers increased functionality, such as newer versions of PSP firmware, then it's not a simple matter of saying "don't upgrade", it's a decision you have to make - do you want the new features or do you want your current freedom? Seeing as any unlock-thwarting updates will inevitably be broken, I'd suggest waiting for that, upgrading, THEN re-unlocking your iPhone.
  
  As for the bricking idea, that's totally illegal. It's recognized that it's lawful to unlock your cell phone to work with other carriers, and it's fully within Apple's rights to non-destructively thwart that, but if they brick your phone in the process, then they've broken the law. Same reason that software developers cannot use malware as an anti-piracy method - they have every right to try to prevent you from running their software without a license, but if they damage your OS installation or any data you have as a result then they've broken the law.
s1nister, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5This is my prediction:

Steve Jobs/Apple will never make an active attempt to block unlocked iPhones because they can only gain more money from people unlocking cell phones and using them on other carriers. HOWEVER, they also have a public reputation to protect which is why they have to say that they are working furiously around the clock to stop the unlockers. I don't think they care, it's a waste of resources trying to stop a problem that is making them more money, and I think Steve Jobs knows it too.

And if nothing else, Steve Jobs started out making Blue Boxes with Woz, which is basically a phone unlocker in the most liberal of definitions. So for pure nostalgia's sake, Steve shouldn't crack the whip.
- tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're ignoring the fact that they get revenue from the contracts, too.
istatic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Honestly, I don't think Apple cares. It's more for the benefit of their new partner, O2.
greekgoat91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2***** that
monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3lol, Apple required by law to say that they will fight the iPhone crack.
MattCairns, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Apple would not brick your iphone intentionally, its bad for business. Sure they can lock it back up and everyone would understand but bricking somebodys iphone would be a really bad move.
ventro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgEpgKsLjU
If you watch the youtube video of the question, Steve is almost confused by the question, almost as if he only knew people were hacking the iPhone to add apps, and didn't know people were using it to unlock the iPhone. You didn't even get the impression that he knew what the term "unlock" meant. He went like "Oh you mean hacking", which could mean the addition of third-party apps, instead of flat-out unlocking.
segura, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6So how does Steve use his iPhone when he goes to UK, France, and Germany . . . oh nevermind, AT&T gave him unlimited global calling, so he doesn't understand why we want ours unlocked.
- infobhan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think Steve could afford just about any phone bill he receives.
chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9I always used to think M$ was the evil empire but now since jobs computer business became Apple co. I'm starting to realize they are becoming the next evil monopoly. Jobs, why mess with peoples freedom to choose? Say it isn't just for the money.
- desqjockey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1so they can barter it away when they catch fire on anti-trust.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of COURSE it's about money. What company trying to stay in business isn't about money. I've never understood how people would believe that company A was looking after their best interests. If they exist to make a profit, well that come first. Even as an Apple fan and long-time Mac user I've never believed anything else.
- BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, AT&T was the only company that was willing to make such drastic changes to their networks to allow for the features Apple wanted. Sure there was money involved (duh) but no one else would take the risk with so little garuntees. AT&T was the one that forced Apple to lock in accounts.
mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6I've known that apple makes crappy proprietary over priced garbage for years. Its funny how many people are just now figuring this out though.
fogster, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I don't think Apple has any reason to care what you do with your phone after you purchase it, aside from whatever pressure AT&T exerts on them. They certainly wouldn't want to promote unlocking the phone, which would probably end the deal with AT&T, but what incentive do they have to brick peoples' phones?
mbthompson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Steve Jobs = tool
airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Bring on the lawsuit. Unlocking cell phones is legal. How can a contract between two parties affect a third party from doing something with a device they purchased? I mean, until you activate the iPhone, you don't even have a contract with either company.
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It is NOT legal. you're not entitled to unlock your phone. You just won't get your ass sued for copyright iinfringement under the DMCA for doing it. What the ***** don't you people understand about that?
  - MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2loco, because both sides of this stupid argument have firm locked positions that have very little to do with facts. Good try though
  - nogami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You really aren't too bright are you loco... This is about the 3rd post I've read from you in here saying exactly the same thing. Does posting 3 times make poor information "more true" in your mind? Did you read about the DMCA exemption that SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS unlocking your phone? It's very legal. How about before posting again, you go look it up.
    
    And the DMCA has nothing to do with copyright infringement in this case, it has to do with allowing the circumvention of an electronic protection for the sake of interoperability with other carriers. So what's left to "make it illegal"? Because Steve Jobs doesn't like it?
    
    What the ***** don't YOU understand about that?
    - tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its an exemption. It just means that you cannot be fined/arrested/etc under the DMCA. Apple/ATT/etc. could argue the legality under other terms, though. Eg. Breach of contract. You could use the DMCA exemption to help your case, but it is not 100%.
    - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hey Nogami, are you even literate? The reason I have to post 12 times is because everyone here has made up this fantasy in their minds that they're entitled to do whatever they want with their device, and it's simply not true. All the DMCA says is that you cannot be sued for copyright infringement for bypassing the encryption in unlocking your phone. That's it, end of story. It does NOT say it's legal to do. It does NOIT say you're entitled to do it or that a carrier is required to unlock the device for you. It does NOT preclude the carrier from attempting to relock the phone. What you need to sit down and understand is that there's a difference from saying that something will not subject you to civil liability, and that it's legal.
      - airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What law does modifying your own property break?
Josephtech, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Even though Apple makes money from AT&T for every phone sold they still make more money from unlocked phones in two way. From people like me in Canada where I don't have an option to buy an iPhone and secondly people already locked into another carrier. Theres not even evidence Apple will do this, its just speculation. Why in the world would Apple piss off thousands of loyal customers by taking their $400 for a paperweight?!
3210, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Hopefully, Apple will respect the people's right to use whatever carrier they want after they purchase their phone.
Dorian822, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Okay...so what is Apple's strategy with this?

They make you pay 400 dollars for the iPhone, then they make sure you are an A T&T subscriber and pay monthly for your service, then they charge you to make you use their service to rebuy and pay to make ringtones from music you already own.

BUT...if after the ridiculous amount of money it's cost you to this point, if you try and do ANYTHING with Your iPhone, the iPhone you paid through the nose for, they will give you the boot or somehow screw you over (maybe even brick your iPhone).

WTF? Way to look out for the customers, Stevie J. and way to making me rethink over 20 years of customer loyalty to the Apple brand.
- infobhan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I love how people jump to react to this sort of post. Has Apple announced ANYTHING related to this?
w3torg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2This is one of the main reasons I wouldn't buy the iPhone to begin with. I understand exclusivity contracts from a business standpoint, but if it doesn't work on my carrier (and I'm already thinking about moving to the exclusive carrier), I'm not going to bother with it. I would hope Apple wouldn't ever make such a move as to stick a knife the the backs of their loyal customers, and I don't think Apple's that stupid. Why should they care if people unlock the iPhone?
AzMegladon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7ha ha, ***** apple, ***** steve jobs, stupid apple fanboys.com
- livevil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ahahahah! Apple fanboys, welcome to reality.
truegodofwar, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4the internets have officially turned against apple.

***** you apple and ***** you steve Jobs.

I'll do whatever the ***** I want with MY hardware.
Boomh4u3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Interview w/ Steve Jobs about IPhone 2.0 and "new carriers" Good Interview IMO
- sublime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Damn it, I've been Rick Rolled.
Repeater2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Somehow i know AT&T is behind this. Super Steve to the rescue!!!!!!!!!!
sunchild, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I find this article a little odd, since I overheard three separate Apple store employees today telling customers that they can use T-Mobile in the US.
Nanolight, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1***** die Steve, go back to the hell hole you came from. If I buy something its mine and I'll do what ever the ***** I want with it... If I want to buy an iPhone and smash it with a ***** hammer are you going to come and "play cat and mouse" with me!!!!!!1!!11!
caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I told you this was going to happen, Apple has no choice but to honor it's contracts with AT&T. If you refuse to honor your contract with Apple and / or AT&T you have voided your contract and your right to use the device on any network.
Repeater2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This story is getting dugg down in record time. Sweeeeep it under the rug Diggers.
chrismok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Apple is now Microsoft 2.0 We're against DRM, except we want to close the iPOD library, make you use iTunes, make you use ATT. Bend over and grab your ankles, it's going to be a rough ride from here on out.

Steve Jobs == Bill Gates Lite
teckieee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1its my Fckin phone! leave it alone!
lohphat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"Micro$oft is a monopoly!! WAAHHHHH!!!"

"Oooooh...how much do you want for that iPhone....*drool*"

Apple fanboys are complete tools.
xkorbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll be placing my tin-foil hat on at about this time; I'm sure Apple is out to get our bad-asses for unlocking a consumer electronic.
mrdibs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Pure conjecture. That's three minutes of my life I'll never get back. Buried.
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Apple's fight against iPhone unlocks may result in expensive bricks

Login or register to add a comment