What is Digg?221 Comments
- Nudar, on 10/11/2007, -22/+126"California Man" knew what he was buying when he bought it: a phone that is only supposed to work on AT&T's network. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for him and the other people who got bricked?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+58More accurate description: Idiot bricks his phone by intentionally violating Terms of Service and attempts to blame the manufacturer.
- otatop, on 10/10/2007, -14/+51This is almost as dumb as the woman suing for $1 million over the price drop. Locking phones into one provider is nothing new, and they said from the start that they weren't going to fight unlocking, but they weren't going to help it either, so your phone may get bricked. I want to find this guy and kick his ass for wasting my tax dollars with this crap. Actually, I'll find that woman, too.
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38"Apple's allegedly unlawful practices are forcing consumers to pay "artificially inflated" prices for the iPhone and AT&T's service."
What a coincidence. That ***** Steve Jobs just held me at gunpoint, took $400, and gave me an iPhone last night. - JlmAWP, on 10/10/2007, -9/+38Arg, this thing is getting out of control. Seriously, the specifics of the iPhone were carefully laid out months before purchase, in terms of network and software. I don't see how he has a case at all. It's like getting mad at Porsche for not having off-road capabilities. It's just stupid.
- CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31Wha't next? Someone suing because they spilled hot coffee on their lap and burned themself?
- Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27I'll take frivolous lawsuit, for $599.99.
- danasghar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+28and apparently it warns you before you install the software to unlock it. Ive heard it actually warns you and you have agree and acknowledge that you run this risk. what an idiot(s).
- devin_mm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Yes but they're still covered by warranty so they will be replaced.
- nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20This could be trouble for apple. Anyone frivolous enough to buy a $600 cell phone is probably frivolous enough to sue you when they don't like it.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20i think he is suing to make a statement ~ i think pushing for interoperability of devices is good ~ i don't like ATT ~ i want to remain with my current carrier as they are hassle free ~ also for frequent travelers a phone that is that costly does so many things that you come to rely on that you can't take to europe or the far east seems totally behind the curve ~
- Jaitls, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15u people are numb to sarcasm.
- SystmBetatester, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12stop crying. apple users should be use to their hardware being locked down by now.
- harrypl0tter, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18why do dumb ***** try to sue over anything. Seriously....he knew that the iphone was supposed to work only on the att network. IT is just like me suing because a HD dvd doesnt work on a blu-ray player...
- Korexz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20Interesting. Anyone that did not HACK their iPhone had no issues. Maybe the 3rd party that supplied the hack software should be sued? Did he READ the TOS, or EULA when he decided to HACK the OS on his iPhone?
- Juaquin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Well he's not going to win on the bricking, but I believe there is a law that requires them to unlock any phone after 90 days, so he may just win that one.
- CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9What? I've been in a coma for the last 20 years and just woke up today. That's crazy! What's wrong with America? Next you'll tell me that lovable running back OJ Simpson is in trouble with the law.
- jebudas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10No dude, you read it wrong:
...and that Apple's allegedly unlawful practices of using jedi mind tricks on potential customers are "forcing" consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for the iPhone and AT&T's service. - hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I bought a phone that works exactly as advertised, I changed the firmware to an unsupported state to change the phone to work in an unadvertised/unsupported manner. Then I installed a firmware that I was explicitly told not to install if I changed my firmware. My phone stopped working in the unsupported/unadvertised manner.
Where's my check.
WTF is wrong with these people. They broke their own phones and this is Apple's fault? - jimbojones1977, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7He clicked it when he agreed to the 1.1.1 upgrade, dumbass.
- Sabin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Welcome to North America where all our phones are "totally behind the curve".
- CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Their librarians are even rougher than the Salvation Army soldiers.
- NYankee2003, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Library of Congress? Since when do they have any legal authority whatsoever?
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Although unlocking the phone may be legal, that doesn't mean that Apple has to allow it to happen. It means that the unlocker can't be sued for unlocking the phone. It's not really a subtle difference.
- hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Apple should require you to sing something before buying the iPhone... they could just submit the film to American Idol then.
- monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Seriously. It's not a direct metaphor at all, but it's like those people who decided to sue McDonald's for making them too fat and unhealthy, although we've been taught since the day we were born that they make junk food. It was thrown out of court immediately.
- derrickgossman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6you make it sound like these people didn't have any control over the update. they initiated the upgrade themselves, apple didn't push it to their phone without their permission.
- scotty1024, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Maybe he'd be happier if Apple had the bricked iPhone owners sued for breach of contract?
Starting with him apparently. :-) - unsquare, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7no, the provision makes it allowable to unlock your phone without being prosecuted. it doesn't require unlocking at all. ...and, seriously? "rape is rape"? ***** you, this doesn't have anything to do with rape.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Why do ***** idiots like yourself still bring up this case? This was NOT an example of a bad lawsuit. McDonalds ADMITTED to breaking their own guidelines by making the coffee scalding hot...MUCH hotter than is considered safe. And they did this to save a few pennies by not having to make as many batches. If you spill most coffee on yourself, you will get burned, sure. You will NOt get third degree burns that require skin grafts like the woman did. She had every right to sue, and every right to win.
- MYarms, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Awww how sad, but guess what... you shouldn't have spent $600 on a phone and then hacked into it. As I see it you got what you deserved.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Why should apple be held accountable when people break there licensing agreement by tinkering with stuff? When making a firmware update, why should Apple take into account what people did? Why is it there duty to help out people who have broken a contract with them? and before anyone says otherwise, a licensing agreement is a contract under US law.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9No, this guy is abusing the legal system. EVERYTHING was laid out plain as day and you knew what you were buying.
And for the "overpaid by $200"... He was willing to pay it, so it's not "overpaid" - ScottoGato, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Not only that, but these people upgraded their phones when they knew the 1.1.1 update was going to brick their phone.
- dubdope, on 10/10/2007, -12/+17the apple cult seems to have a problem with other companies trying to screw consumers over, but when apple does it, it's A-OK!
i guess this is unconditional love? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Not true. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that there were several phones that had never been tinkered with which were bricked.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7No, the fact that they are offering a tool means that they had worries their software upgrade would brick some of the phones, especially if they had been modified, and that they were prepared.
The phone was locked to AT&T because they were the only network to play ball with Apple and give the phone what it needed. - FallenWings, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Thank you, Ted. That was the joke.
- robbh66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why exactly is this frivolous?
It's 100% legal to unlock your phone in the US. Now, with that said, apple does not have to support such unlocking. The argument gets a lot less clear when you introduce the bricking of the phones but i suppose that's what this lawsuit will figure out.
I personally don't blame Apple for wanting to make it hard for people to use their phones on other networks. However, if they bricked people's phones just because they realized they wouldn't be able to control those users that's wrong. - moofer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, to further strengthen your analogy, it's more like adding a bunch of after-market engine modifications and then expecting Porsche to honor warranty repairs on damage caused by the mods.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5They didn't BREAK your phone. They made a firmware update available and YOU chose to install it, even after they warned you.
You say "They can not send me code through iTunes and intentionally fry my phone!" It's not as if they only gave the code to people who hacked their phone, they gave it to everyone in the easiest manner possible (through iTunes). Should they make exceptions for people who violated a contract with them? - Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Way to completely miss the point of my post, and the part of the quote that I was commenting on, numbnuts.
- Speed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Question: If it was a Zune Phone that was being bricked for unlocking, would you be reacting the same? Is your stance because you think the lawsuit is frivolous, or because it's a lawsuit against Apple?
And for the record, there's no reason for the update to completely brick the phone. It's not hard to have a checksum or something to make sure that the firmware being upgraded is the right kind, and to just abort if it detects that it'd been modified in any way. That's the way most updates work, they run a check to make sure they won't eff up what they're upgrading. Why did Apple not do this? - Vorsuc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7And you can, but Apple are not legally obligated to support you doing it. So if you want to unlock, the price you pay is never upgrading your firmware.
If you do, Apple are entirely justified in locked phones back down and closing previous exploits.
I just don't get why, given this is standard operating procedure for electronics firms and hackers, Apple users suddenly feel hard done to. Have they never owned an electronic device before? Or are they convinced some nicely designed bit of plastic deems them worthy of special treatment from the world?
The case has no legs, if only because of the floodgates that'll open if this becomes a precendence case to be used against other firms. - sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4the main difference with Microsoft and apple is apple doesn't force you to upgrade the software and microsoft banns you just for modding it.
- carvsdriver, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Yet another person in our society who feels the need to get rich off of someone else's success. Good job buddy. I hope you DIAF. (And I'm not even a MAC fan, let alone an iPhone fan)
- Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7She ***** spilled coffee on herself. Of course it's going to be hot. I'm fine with her medical bills being paid for because, admittedly, it was pretty stupid for them to try and squeeze every last penny out of the coffee that way, but it's not a multi-million dollar claim.
- Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Well, apples do have a tendency to spoil faster once the skin is broken.
- jebudas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5jaymo, no matter where you stand on this issue, phone locking != rape.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 214 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is