What is Digg?176 Comments
- 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. - 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.
- woxidu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26buried for FUD
(Never thought I'd say that about Ars... how the mighty have fallen...) - sirlancelot88, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Everyone! HDR photo of Kevin Rose smoking Weed and using Ubuntu-powered iPhone to call Ron Paul!!!
- fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -18/+35Hell... 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. - venom1221, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17its MY hardware since i bought it
- Captaffy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14You have summed up Digg in its entirety.
- 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?
- chewbaka, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I agree, this this complete FUD. Below are the complete transcript of the interview question:
10:26 - Q: Is unlocking a concern?
Steve: "It's a constant cat and mouse game -- we have the same thing with the iPod with music." Steve looks at Matthew, "Are we the cat or mouse?" 'We have to stay one step ahead of them."
This is a pretty benign reponse. I mean, he was asked this at a public press conference. What was Steve supposed to say? "Yeah, we don't really care, it's AT&T's problem"? - 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.
- MacPPC, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20uh oh
- inactive, 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 !!! - 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.
- 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
- ryanhayn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10this is just some ***** to scare the less smart people into NOT unlocking their iphones.
- 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. - kenoticc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10 People that live outside the US have a good reason...
- jonshipman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8you forgot the reason he was calling Paul, to bash Microsoft
- 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.
- vemerge, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It's way more than a hundred.
- jm1234567890, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Expensive and very thin bricks.
- 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) - 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.
- 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 - 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. - inactive, 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? - 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- inactive, 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
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4BREAKING!!!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7ha ha, ***** apple, ***** steve jobs, stupid apple fanboys.com
- SniperGX1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You missed something outrageous about google and CONFIRMED in front.
- 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.
- Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5But $2300 for the 1 Year AppleCare on that BJ.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hes not only a cheap hooker, hes a child abandoning cheap hooker!!
- mbthompson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Steve Jobs = tool
- 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.
- inactive, 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.
- monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yeah, because a complimentary $100 gift card makes a great wooden paddle.
- livevil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ahahahah! Apple fanboys, welcome to reality.
- 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 :( - 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.
- 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.
- Repeater2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Leave Steve ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- sublime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Damn it, I've been Rick Rolled.
- zeropoint51, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I love Macs but the guys at Ars always come off as massive Apple ass kissing fan boys.
- 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
- inactive, 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is