digg

Join DiggAbout

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

IPhone: Bring a Bricked iPhone to the Genius bar and Talk to the hand

gizmodo.com — LAWL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cave, on 10/10/2007, -5/+95Nice summary there.
    • RealityCheque, on 10/10/2007, -20/+8Dugg down because of the summary...no idea what it means, but I am sure it is nerd lingo.
      • wafu, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1lol
      • badjoke, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8"lawl" is the phonetic way of saying "lol". Quite annoying and usually only said by 12 year-olds who play World of Warcraft.
        • RealityCheque, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Ahh..thanks badjoke...I figured it was something that only really little kids say...explains why I haven't heard it.
    • drinklord, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Maybe the summary should have said, "Gizmodo unapologetically uses racial slur 'Indian Giver' in story about Apple service" ?
    • cleverboy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1FYI.
      http://digg.com/apple/iPhone_Bricking_The_Inconven ...
  • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -7/+57What's that word I'm looking for... oh yeah I remember now


    DUH!!
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Lol, I know. Why would you expect a company to service someone else's' software? And Apple even warned the update would probably break phones that were unlocked or modified with 3rd party apps. It doesn't take a genius to figure out they aren't going to help you after they warned you not to modify the phone.
  • loudmouth11, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5all i can say is its there fault you knew they werent going to help you why even waste your time going ot the apple store
  • aussiekevin, on 10/10/2007, -18/+101I'd like another 10 IPhone stories today, please.
    • Rev0lver, on 10/10/2007, -18/+3Thank you for contributing to this article. Where would we be without such wisdom? :|
    • ZombieKiss, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I'm personally looking forward to the usual 19 or so Halo 3 stories.
    • awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I'm sure we could arrange that for you.

      Careful what you wish for!
    • compuguy1088, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Can I have some sugar with that as well?
    • SirZRX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1just buy one and join the club dude
    • mikev, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dont look at the apple section. you can even remove it

      problem solved. :D
    • Dylson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ask and u shall recieve LOL
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well there're 3 zune stories... does that count?
  • Shaman760, on 10/10/2007, -22/+8When you adultrate the godphone you piss off the SteveJobs. How dare you.

    /sarcasm

    BTW just don't buy a godphone. Nothing screams "wannabe" like a godPhone. It's like a monster truck for your hand.
    • dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4At what point of propagation when something is clearly hitting the pinnacle of popularity are you a poser for buying it? Does anything ever get over that hump? Apparently, anyone who buys an apple product is a douche, even though their products are clearly in demand by more than just a niche audience of douches. Douches don't support a business alone.
  • EpidemiK, on 10/10/2007, -23/+10We need more topics about iPhones!
  • Lutraphobia, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1Dave Chapelle?
  • rasbill, on 10/10/2007, -8/+34i have the iphone, i hacked it for 3rd party applications, they said the new update is gonna brick my phone if i use it, so unlike most people i was smart enough to wait for the hackers to figure it out, the update was crap anyway, double click to get to the pause button pissa, for all you people that needed that so bad it was worth the gamble of a 400 dollar phone, you lost, and your a dummy
    • pesil, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5No, no... You ARE the dummy!
    • jads, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5finally! It sounds as though someone has actually *thought* about the consequences of hacking an iPhone then reading the warning issues by Apple.
    • Mav848, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I rated you down just for buying one. True story.
  • MetisElara, on 10/10/2007, -41/+71Apple, I've sucked your ***** for a whole decade. No more.
    • dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+89Whoa! Most people just bought their products.
    • bradwilki, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24Why? Because you've bricked your phone when you stupidly thought to update it? Even when Apple have said you could have problems. Give me a break.
      If Apple have not of told you that you might have problems you probably get away with sentence.
      What you should really say is: "I'm dumb and didn't listen to what Apple said."
      • sirhomer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8Yes, always remember to listen to Big Brother Apple.
      • MetisElara, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4I didn't unlock it. I just hate that it removed all my third party apps when I updated it. And I hate that you lose support if you jailbrake it. That's ***** retarded.
      • Mav848, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You tell him, brother. How DARE he assault the honor of the mother company. Why, without apple, we'd be forced to use PCs, and that would just be so... so... CONFORMIST! Yeah, thats it.
        We should all be unique, pretty little snowflakes of the cult of apple.
    • pianoman201, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Well, you could try sucking Microsoft's *****, or getting anal raped by trying to learn Linux. Either way, you're gonna end up getting down on your knees and taking it. But what else can you do?
      • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3OH, that's a good idea. Why not just get MICROSOFT'S equivalent to the iPhone that's unlocked and lets you do anything you want to it on any carrier. I'm gonna ask Santa Claus for that this Christmas.
        • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well Microsoft's equivalents of the iPhone suck ass. My Windows Mobile device was always crashing and was slow as hell. The phone part of the software/hardware would crash and there would be no visible evidence of the crash until I came to use the phone functionality and it would fail.

          A good couple of hours passed before I realised the phone wasn't working. And this happened on a weekly basis, and I'm not even going to start on the 2-3 day reboot cycle it required.

          At least the iPhone is able to deliver on what was promised.
    • Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I hope more people take your attitude: Apple is a business. They want your money by any means necessary. To them, that means putting up this "we're cool, you're cool for liking us, and have have the coolest stuff" front.

      This doesn't make them bad, this makes them a business. Just like all others that will do whatever it takes to part you from your money as early and as often as possible. They don't LIKE you by any stretch of the imagination any more than Microsoft likes you for buying Windows.

      Evaluate their products, actions, and everything they do in that light, and you'll find that what they sell are overpriced computers and electronics that usually have more focus on simplistic design and usability. If that's your thing, go for it. If not, don't. There's certainly no reason to buy because you have this strange conception that their values are good or that they "like" you. They don't.

      I'll go get out my flamesuit for posting something anti-Apple on Digg.
      • mrraven200, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14 years ago when it was all about OS X and Final Cut Pro I would have disagreed with you vehemently. Now that it's all about iphones and imacs with glossy screen and 16 bit color useless for serious graphic design I sadly have to agree. I'm pretty sure my dual processor G5 pro tower from 3 years ago will be my last major Apple purchase as they move towards becoming Sony II.
        • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oooh, don't move to Sony, I had a Vaio. Sony wants to be Apple, but they don't have a good OS and retain the high price tag.
          • mrraven200, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The point was Apple becoming a consumer electronics company is a bad thing not that I was going to buy a Sony.
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4You got skull *****.
  • Lutraphobia, on 10/10/2007, -31/+0Dave Chappelle?
    • Macshiba, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Thanks for posting the exact same comment 5 minutes ago. If nobody dugg you up the first time, then don't ***** do it again!
  • mahsah, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5LAWL?
    • pauleric, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Loser Appleboi Whinging Loudly?

      Don't hate me! I love OSX and hate Windows. There, now maybe all the Mac users won't digg me down, and I can sleep peacefully tonight, secure in the knowledge that, you know, nobody hates me.
  • bethune, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3Instead of just having an Apple section for Digg we need an iPhone section that stays off the front page.
    • Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The reason that this currently has -8 diggs is why I would love to move to a less fanboi site than Digg.
  • brada33928, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6iphone is the isuck of the 00's.
  • 3210, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9It's stupid to go to Apple and try to get them to fix the phone, it's obvious that they won't help you. Those that unlocked their iPhones now need to wait for a fix. Apple didn't break the phones just to go fix them for you.
    • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Apple won't fix because by hacking around you "VOIDED YOUR WARRANTY".
  • mal1964, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1ipod
  • Bob042, on 10/10/2007, -16/+10Buried for "description".
    • MonkeyHugger, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Comment buried for being pedantic.
      • jdmcadam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Digg / Burry the content, not the 1 sentence caption.
    • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Comment dugg because there is nothing wrong from burying articles to discourage stupid, annoying "descriptions" that begin with "LAWL" and end with 4.7 * 10^12 exclamation marks.
  • m00nb34m, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6The iPhone is a computer. So why doesn't this same nonsense apply to my MacBook? I have tons of third-party, non-Apple appls on my MacBook. C'mon Apple. Don't treat us this way.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Because your MacBook isn't locked to AT&T.
    • jakem1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Because Steve said it's a post-computer device. That means toy.
    • bartha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I think it will take more than just convincing arguments
      • Gutterpunk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Nothing he said was convincing. Every freaking phones are there are "computers", but no one expect thing to work on a PC to work on every one of them.
    • thinkdifferent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Your MacBook has a public API which developers are encouraged to use to develop apps. The API has been tested & isn't going to change.

      The iPhone on the other hand, has no such API. All hacks are the result of reverse engineering the private APIs to try to get something working. Usually, they had to change part of the OS to allow them to do that. Expecting Apple to support the hacks & go out of their way to keep them working is ridiculous.
  • keyme, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I wonder how long will it take to make a "downgrading" hack for this?
    • Gutterpunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And even when it is here, people will find way to complain about Apple not honoring their warranty on their newly downgraded/bricked iPhone.
    • lukeyd2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it is here...
  • sirhomer, on 10/10/2007, -21/+4Who ever buys a CrApple product is an idiot in the first place.
    • Lambeco, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Witty, ass.
      • Microfoot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I think he might be suggesting Apple is of lower quality with a "play on words" of sorts.
  • cavar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Can barely understand a word. Needs subtitles.
  • joe90210, on 10/10/2007, -18/+15why are these things dugg up? you know the apple fanboys will justify any decision apple makes, it's futile
    • zeeky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1no, many of us are pissed at apple for being such assholes about this whole thing
  • sirhomer, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7Don't dare say anything bad about Apple or the shills and fanboys will digg you down. Applebots are sick little creatures.
  • Riggor, on 10/10/2007, -26/+54And if Microsoft did this, you'd all be saying it's typical "M$" *****, but instead the Apple fanboys have come out in flocks to defend Jobs. Ridiculous.
    • sam3, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17Not many people are defending this, buddy.
    • Gutterpunk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9I'm pretty sure that if anyone were to complain that modded 360 got banned from XBoxLive, they would get the same answer as they are getting now.
      Telling people that they are stupid for expecting a repair for their modified iPhone is not defending Jobs, its pointing the obvious
      • rohanch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2There's a big difference though. The only "modded" 360s that can connect to Live are hacked to play pirated games, or potentially they could be hacked to cheat in online play (as happened with the original Xbox). Banning those boxes is completely justifiable. And not to mention that hacked 360s don't become bricked like iPhones apparently do, regular offline play still functions normally.
        • vlurk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Oh, and what about those hacked PSPs that use a custom firmware? What happens when you apply the very latest official firmware from Sony on top of it? Yeah, that's right: you get a brick. Don't go crying at Sony or on developers forum because you were warned that this could pose problems. Now, the same thing is happening with Apple's iPhone: to have a phone that isn't SIM locked, a modification was done to the firmware of the radio transmitter. The new official firmware doesn't play well with the "unofficial" (hacked) firmware? Well, it is your problem bro: even Apple told you it might gets you into troubles.
        • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't need to mod an Xbox 360 for it to be bricked. It'll happily do that "out of the box"
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1at least we don't have the unhappy work of trying to defend the zune. damn, i don't know how you guys do it...
  • jclassracer, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5*****
  • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -12/+47LOL is an acronym. You type it out because you do not want to take the time to write "Laughing Out Loud". We want to *shorten* it by writing LOL. Do not write "LAWL". It is *longer*, is a phonics representation of an ancrynon, and makes you look really really stupid.
    • crazybrit, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7You are so much smarter than the submitter.
    • discofreak, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10LAWL! you're so funny!
      • kmesp86, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This is very serious business. Leave Digg NOW.
    • FKnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How the hell is that any different than the rest of the "new media" of blogs, social websites, and "news" sites that can't even be bothered to run a spell check most of the time, or podcasters that can't even bother to learn how to use a gain knob?

      I've said it before. History will remember this era as the time the media was taken over by idiot 12 year olds.

    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thank you. LAWL represents the corrupting effect of the internet on spelling and grammar.
      • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you are from teh south LAWL is much more appropriate.
    • K3ITHK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3truly epic lulz
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1language evolves
  • NewChar, on 10/10/2007, -9/+58LAWL?

    What are you, 12?
    • discofreak, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3LAWL, good one!
    • Gutterpunk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Its the iPhone demographics.

      /Hellooooo Digg basement!
    • zeeky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6IM IN UR WHITE HOWSE CHANGIN UR LAWLZ!!!
  • Duncan3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Yea, they always violate company policy on video. It's not the dumbass bar!
  • telemart73, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6i got burned when i tried to unlock mine, even though i gave up and went with AT&T. The genius bar dude that i worked with was polite enough to quietly point out that the IMEI numbers didn't match and that the one i had was from the unlocking tool. He said that alone would prevent him from being able to do anything. The guy was really nice about it, even though i was trying to play dumb.

    Although i am utterly flabbergasted that apple is doing this, in the one day that i had to return to my TMobile MDA, i realised that it's inconceivable for me to go back to a windows mobile phone and got a new iphone. Hopefully i can unbrick the one i ***** up and sell it to someone.
    • sonicularulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3so all you need (i dont need it since i didnt unlock my phone) is an app which allows you to hack the IMEI number to match the original one, which is posted on the back of the iphone box....
      sounds simple, but knowing its apple hardware, its not...tee hee hee...
      • telemart73, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I was pretty surprised that the genius was that honest about it. He said that if the IMEI numbers matched, it would be straight-up a working machine or returnable.

        Anyone know the status of an IMEI hack?
      • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Also of note, I know in the UK at least modifying the IMEI of a mobile phone is a criminal offence, and has quite a hefty penalty.

        Is it the same for the US?
    • da5id, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'll give you $50 for it -- bricked. Digg mail me
    • mynameisjesse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I will give you $60 right now. Let me know.
    • zeeky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ill buy it for $70. i didnt know you could PM people on digg. how??
  • sooka5, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4umm, idiots or not for putting third party software ...can i just say one thing. this is the definitive reason y every1 who buys a mac product of any kind is an idiot period. apple doesnt care about u. they have built their empire off of monopolizing their own software and the minute u try to do something with it (which is moot cuz apple products dont do ne thing but sit there and be gay ne way) mac screws u in the ass. heres a tip, dont tell them u put third party add ons on and then take it back for a refund and never buy a mac instead. iphones arent new technology. windows handhelds or sidekicks of ne kind have been around for 8 years or so. the only thing this has is a touch screen (which u know will function like ***** after about a year of heavy use). dont buy apple nubs!
    • mynameisjesse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You are nothing short of a moron.
    • jads, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I am afraid I cannot take business advice from a person who does not believe in punctuation, spelling or grammar.
  • brickbat, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12The third party apps didn't brick the phone. The update bricks the phone. They should be required to provide a downgrade back to a working phone at least.
    • Gutterpunk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yes. They will as soon as they justify doing so for enough non-unlocked non-modified iPhone.
      It will probably not happen
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, the presence of the 3rd party apps allowed the phone to be bricked. Updating a stock iPhone won't brick it; the update simply...fixes the glitch.
    • zeeky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2apple says 3rd party software may cause irreversible damage to the iphone, yet the only damage being done to iphones are the updates provided by apple!!
    • vlurk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2First there are 2 types of hacked iPhones: those that are SIM unlocked (modification to the radio firmware), and those that are only allowing third party applications (software mod only). Guess what? The new firmware only brick the iPhones that were SIM unlocked! Those that were only using 3rd party apps on AT&T won't get a brick, but they will loose their apps for the time being. The new Apple firmware just wasn't tested to work with the hacked (SIM Unlocked) radio firmware. And Apple didn't have to: they even told you that unlocked phones might pose problem with the new update. So Apple didn't damage your phone: you did by applying an update over a (now) unsupported product.
  • jdmcadam, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21 Ok. Admittedly, people who have unlocked their iPhones HAVE (knowingly or not) voided their warranty and really don't have a case when it bricks up. The point isn't that Apple has done this - the point is that as a company, is this really a good PR move, and was it even necessary? They've created a product which has the ability to work totally fine on other networks, then they've gone OUT OF THEIR WAY to effectively destroy a legally purchased product (out of what, vengeance?) and then turned away those customers when they want help. They COULD reformat the OS much like Jean says in the video, but they don't, not even for a fee.

    These are people who went above and beyond just to buy YOUR product, Apple. They didn't want any phone, they wanted yours, to the point they had to hack it just so it would work on their network (perhaps they're locked into a contract, or AT&T isn't in their area) and instead of embracing them, you've waved your finger saying "told you so" and turned your back on them.

    Not cool.
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Absolutely. I have little sympathy for those customers in the United States who had problems with AT&T although they offered the best deal for the iPhone than anyone else. As far as using it overseas and on other carriers, it's just a matter of time! Apple entered a new market and is taking it one step at a time. I agree with jdmcadam here in that people love Apple products and those individuals who spent $600 on an iPhone should be able to use it, even if it is on Apple and AT&T's terms. Do they NOT want people using their products? I can't believe they did this, but they did.
    • bpapa, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5There's no proof that Apple went "out of their way" to destroy anything. It's not Apple's responsibility to create software that will support unauthorized development. If they are going to do an update and it breaks stuff that people weren't supposed to be doing anyway, then oh well. Not sure why they should have to dedicate resources to solve those problems.
      • temsi, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2You need to do your homework.
        The hack isn't what broke the phone, the new firmware is, and no, it's not because of a coding bug in the unlocking hack. This is deliberate.
        The new firmware deliberately bricks the phone if it finds that the previous firmware has been tampered with.
        Apple had a choice:
        1. Force a reset of the phone, making it "locked" again, forcing the owner to actually honor Apple's exclusive contract with AT&T in order to use the phone.
        2. Brick the phone, rendering it completely useless - not even as an ipod, after the customer paid $600 for it.

        They chose option #2.
        Apple deliberately disabled a product a client has paid for, simply because they tried to tamper with it.
        This isn't about a warranty expiration, this is about Apple behaving like children.
        I smell a class action brewing...
        • mynameisjesse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Bricking the phone is their only true option to prevent someone from unlocking it. If they fixed it for the user, they would go right back to unlocking it which is exactly what they don't want. There are deals behind the scenes we do not know about...people hacked the AppleTV and they did nothing, so don't you think there's a reason Apple has done this?
          • temsi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I don't know about you, but if I pay $600 for a gadget, I don't particularly like the idea of it being deliberately rendered useless, and all features no less, just because I choose not to use the phone feature, which is the only one with the exclusive contract.
            As I said in another post, this would be like GM killing your car with an ECU update because you replaced the included Sirius radio with an XM radio, just because they had an exclusive contract with Sirius. It's still your car, just like this is still the guy's damn iPhone. I suppose the $600 he paid for it was just a license fee to use it, and that he wasn't actually purchasing it? He paid for it, it can do whatever he wants with it. Apple does not have the right to disable his purchased item, just because he's violated the warranty.
            Yes, the guy was an idiot for installing the firmware, but that still doesn't excuse Apple's stance here.
        • br0ken1128, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Apple should have just done more to lock down the OS as hacks were found .. not brick the phone.. how many who bought the phone only to have it pretty much broken by the apple update will now be loyal apple customers? .. alot of these people have been buying apple products for years and now apple just gave them a $600 enema .. not good business
    • zazzalicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At least in the UK warranties do not remove your statutory (i.e. basic legal) rights to have your purchase fit for purpose. This is just a policy decision by Apple to punish people who jailbreak or unlock their phones.
      • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But in the case of the UK, the definition of fit for purpose is "phone works on O2 network". So I don't see what Apple is doing would make it NOT fit for purpose.
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are free to do anything you want with your bricked iPhone, and nobody can stop you from doing that.
    • 21chrisp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Really, it's entirely possible that it just happened and Apple decided not to go out of their way to fix it. Would you hack your computers firmware, flash a new bios and then blame the company if it "bricked" ? This is hacked firmware people, expect the worst.

      It's still possible that Apple intentionally did this, but it's really more likely that the hack simply causes something about the update to fail before it's done which produces a brick.
  • bartha, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2This just might be the day I stop liking Apple so much. It is plain hypocrisy
    • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1How is it hypocrisy? Did Apple say it's bad for someone to do a particular thing and then do that same thing themselves? Because that's what hypocrisy is. This may be a bad thing for Apple to do, but hypocrisy it ain't.
  • inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23I'd like to share a story. The more experienced and mature here will get the point. The rest of you may digg me down in your confusion about why it's relevant. I'm actually looking forward to seeing how many of you just don't get the point.

    In 1997, I had the honor of meeting one of my favorite artists, Gerald Scarfe. You may not know the name, but he's the guy who did the cover artwork for Pink Floyd The Wall and those amazing animated sequences the movie of the album. He also did the character design work for Disney's Hercules. He was showing some of his artwork in a little gallery in downtown Seattle and some fellow fans and I arrived to greet him. He was very cool, a quiet and unassuming British guy. The gallery was quite upscale and wasn't fond of the fan thing so he actually stepped outside to graciously accommodate our requests for autographs and chat with us briefly. One of the women in our group produced a poster from Germany where some band had used his artwork. It turns out the poster was not legal and that Scarfe hadn't authorized the use of the artwork. He didn't seem happy about it and didn't want to sign it and politely informed us of that fact before carrying on signing the rest of the memorabilia we had brought along.

    That seemed fair. It was his artwork. He had the right to be unhappy about his signature on something he hadn't authorized.
    • jdmcadam, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Point taken, but when he saw the poster, did he destroy it or make it unusable out of spite?
    • wafu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I see your point, but it's moot.
      • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wow, way to back up your argument with facts.

        (Or maybe I should say that the evidence before the court is incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire.)
    • inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11> I see your point, but it's moot.

      How so?

      > did he destroy it or make it unusable out of spite?

      No, but then Apple wasn't the one who made the guy's iPhone unusable--he did it himself. The point is you can use your iPhone for whatever purpose you want (which I'm all for, btw.) But to expect Apple to support that is unreasonable. I love how smart and creative people have been about unlocking the iPhone. I honestly think that's great and it's mindblowing that hackers have done so much so quickly, but it's sad that there has arisen such a whiny reaction to Apple refusing to support hacked phones. That wasn't Apple's intent with the product and I'm not sure why people are surprised when they won't support it.
      • dbbblondon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9The problem isn't that these updates accidentally caused something to go wrong with the phones that have been unlocked it's that Jobs has made it pretty clear that Apple is trying to stop unlocked phones from working. I might be wrong but Apple has become the company it has by embracing 3rd party devlopment work, by making it easy to hack stuff they sell and the feeling amongst many is that this relationship of trust has now been lost and that Apple has sold out to the phone carriers.

        I liked your story but I don't think it has anything to do with this situation - Apple is not being asked to endorse the 3rd party hacks, only not to go out of their way to stop them from working...and even worse not make the devices useless as a result. What they have probably done is to only allow their own code run on the hardware but have clearly prevnted people from resetting the phones back to their manufacturer shipped state. This raises questions whether they did it maliciously - in the same way that the government in Burma didn't need to kill peaceful protesters but did it to discourage anyone else from participating.
      • dbbblondon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2The problem isn't that these updates accidentally caused something to go wrong with the phones that have been unlocked it's that Jobs has made it pretty clear that Apple is trying to stop unlocked phones from working. I might be wrong but Apple has become the company it has by embracing 3rd party devlopment work, by making it easy to hack stuff they sell and the feeling amongst many is that this relationship of trust has now been lost and that Apple has sold out to the phone carriers.

        I liked your story but I don't think it has anything to do with this situation - Apple is not being asked to endorse the 3rd party hacks, only not to go out of their way to stop them from working...and even worse not make the devices useless as a result. What they have probably done is to only allow their own code run on the hardware but have clearly prevnted people from resetting the phones back to their manufacturer shipped state. This raises questions whether they did it maliciously - in the same way that the government in Burma didn't need to kill peaceful protesters but did it to prevent anyone else from doing it.
      • br0ken1128, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He's right.. it's a lovely story you told but it doesn't mesh up to what Apple has done because Apple did in fact intentionally brick these phones, they could have just updated software.. they could have just re-flashed the phone to factory default.. but no they didn't .. they clearly wrote in something that checks for the unlock and then if it finds it, disables the phone completely.. the story you told isn't the same deal.
    • da5id, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4And iPhone is a commodity consumer electronic device, not freaking art. So, no, I get the point you're trying to make but the analogy is poor.
    • myrnaloy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This analogy does not apply at all and attempting to make it more relevant by veiled insults (mature?) won't make it more so. The artist in your story was not compensated for his work. Apple had been paid for each phone they render useless.
    • HerbSolo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A friend of mine once went to a tricky concert, and waited in line afterwards, to get an autograph. When he handed his burned, hand-labeled Tricky-album to Tricky, what he got back from tricky was: A big grin + an autographed pirated Tricky-album.
  • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21You've gone and hacked the modem on your phone, and you expect Apple to fix it? I doubt any genius is go to be able to reverse what you did. Seriously, if you go and hack a phone to this level it is your responsibility to be able to reverse it, not the manufacturers. How many of us have a hacked Tivo? Would you expect Tivo to fix it, if something went wrong?
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly! That's why it's called a hack. If it was easy to do, and non-invasive, it wouldn't be hacking.
    • br0ken1128, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nobody expects apple to SUPPORT this hack .. nobody expects apple to FIX a phone that they broke via their hack .. however.. apple broke these phones.. they detected the hack in the update and then they took action via the software to intentionally disable the phone .. the hack didn't break anything, apple did that.. and they didn't have to, they chose to .. so it's all very different..
      • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And you have documented evidence to support this?
  • AmazingAndrex, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4OpenMoko.
    • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I refuse to buy an OpenMoko phone on the grounds that I don't want to own anything with a name that sounds that awkward and ridiculous. And also on the grounds that if a company comes up with a name that bad, their actual product may not be very good either.
  • iomatic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26Hi, I put new cams, different pistons, a third-party transmission, and race fuel in my car, and you reflashed the ECU back to factory specs, and it's not working.

    WHY WON'T YOU FIX MY ENGINE UNDER WARRANTY?


    • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2saying that a third party app voids your warranty on your i phone is like saying that you voided the warranty on your engine by installing slotted rotors
      • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The third-party apps are not the problem. The problem is the hack that enables third-party apps.
    • zazzalicious, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1It's not an engine? It's software?
    • temsi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7This is more like:
      I installed an XM radio in my car, because I already had a subscription there, but you had an exclusive contract with Sirius, and I had to disable their radio in order to use mine.
      You then flashed the car's ECU with an updated system, and now my engine wont start. WTF?
      The car is still my property, and I'd like to be able to use it to get to work, thanks.

      The iPhone is still this guy's property, and he should be able to use all the other functions other than the phone part, if he doesn't want to use AT&T.
      Rendering his property completely useless, is not cool, and is not justified.
      • thinkdifferent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Except in a car, the radio operates independent of the engine. In this case, the OS was hacked & when updating the OS, it failed leaving the firmware in a broken state. This can happen when the firmware wasn't in a known state beforehand. Since the OS controls everything in the phone, the radio analogy is flawed.
    • br0ken1128, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2These analogies are SO stupid .. look .. if YOU broke your car by installing that equipment, of course they wouldn't be expected to fix it .. however, if you installed the new engine and then brought it to the shop and as a result they went in and broke your engine because it wasn't the one THEY put in .. your analogy would make more sense ..
    • Jowsley, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You may want to read up on Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. In short, if the mods you made didn't cause the problem, the warranty must be honored. Unlocking the iPhone isn't causing the problem, rather Apple is bricking the moded phones because they don't like what people are doing with them. I bet this is going to come back to bite Apple.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warrant ...
      • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Any documented proof if Apple deliberately bricking the phones, otherwise shut up with the FUD?
  • sspooner, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Lamest subject line ever. Buried as submitted by a two year old.
  • Kanaka, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Dude shoulda just played dumb ("I never hacked it.....whats a hack?") or just send the phone in without a sim to AppleCare. You can't just walk in with a bricked phone and not have your story straight.

    By the way what happens if you brick your phone....do you get to cancel your contract because that would piss me off if i had to see out my contract without a phone.
    • Gutterpunk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Unless you took the carrier's warranty (does ATT offer that?) I don't see how you could break your contract because you are a dumbass (not you, but people that bricked their phones)
    • Kanaka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Just to clarify am not an unlocker nor do i even own an iPhone so i could care less. I was just theorizing
  • Ploosheeta, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1I wouldn't be surprised if we all end up receiving $100 store credit for this one, too...
  • atezun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30Why is moby working at an Apple Store?
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the hardest i've laughed all day
  • JerodSlay, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5***** apple
  • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I can see why Apple might be pissed off about me trying to use the phone on T-mobile, but I just want to play TapTap Revolution. That said, there's nothing in 1.1.1 to make it worth upgrading, but I'd like to know how long it'll be until it gets hacked. From what I hear it may be never.
  • skinturtle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0When i see a video such as that and see the skinny little bad headed guy talking in a freshly puberty changed voice, saying, "Like umm...and like...and umm..and like."

    I imagine DIGG to be crawling those guys.

    Revenge of the nerds really happened.
  • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Anyone who risked modifying (cracking/hacking) their iPhone took the chance of destroying it the first time. Idiots.
  • variaas, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3So I have a couple questions:

    1) Did the iPhone update deliberately brick phones with 3rd party apps? Or was it just a "convenient" side effect? Or was it a random effect?

    2) Were there any false positives - as in did phones without any 3rd party apps or jailbreaking brick as a cause of the update? If that's the case, obviously it should be supported, but how can Apple tell if you did install anything that breaks their terms of conditions?
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's probably in the warranty. Apple would state clearly that tampering with the software and hardware will break all terms and conditions. It's like modding a video game console; they won't fix something if you change it. Plus, modifications and hacks are unreliable, unsupported, and risky the first time through. Why would anyone take a $600 technological beauty and change it? If it doesn't suit your purposes as is, then don't buy it!
  • dime, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19I'm surprised so many people side with Apple on this.

    I'm into tuning import cars, and as such am familiar with the Magnuson-Moss Act, which (in general) states that a manufacturer cannot deny warranty repairs simply because of an aftermarket part. They have to be able to prove that the part was the cause of the failure. For example, if I install a turbo and my rear suspension fails, they have to fix it, as they're totally unrelated. If, on the other hand, my engine seizes... well, I'm SOL.

    And this seems perfectly reasonable. It's what we should expect from manufacturers regarding their warranties. There is no reason why installing ringtones should brick my hardware. Can you imagine if Dell refused to fix a motherboard if you installed Firefox? At the minimum, these updates should restore it to factory settings. At the *very* minimum, Apple should charge a small fee to reflash the phone. Unless you're opening the box and resoldering *****, there's absolutely no reason it should be any other way.

    Expect more from companies. Instead of just knee-jerking a "LOLOL IDIOT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN", step back and think about what is fair and right.
    • zazzalicious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Exactly, 100% right. What is stopping Apple resetting your iPhone to its' original state? A policy decision perhaps?
    • br0ken1128, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3your post is one of the best here in my opinion .. you nailed it .. it's a software modification that we did to our phones .. it does not warrant apple essentially breaking the device for me ..
      • 3Den, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Okay, I'll bite.

        You paid apple for an iPhone, and along with that came software updates.

        Your modification of your phone (which is TOTALLY your right to do) has a conflict with the software apple sent for an update. That bricked your phone.

        That is your fault.

        It's like you took your car, wired up some weird electrical stuff, didn't tell them about it, took it in for regular warrantee maintanance, and when they replaced the fusebox the electrical system melted. They COULD have prevent it IF it was their responsibility to know about all your after-market modifications.. but it's not.

    • locojones, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You stupid ass Magnuson-Moss Act parrots need to sit down and actually READ the act, and soon you'll find it only applies to cars, not phones. *****.
    • vlurk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ok, let me think: a firmware upgrade isn't playing well with a previously hacked firmware. [sarcasm] Oh yeah, that's totally unrelated: exactly like a rear suspension failure after an engine modification [/sarcasm]. What does the Magnuson-Moss act tells you if your engine breaks (the cam or anything related to the engine block) after you have installed your turbo?
    • diggmaddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Finally a post that makes perfect sense. I totally agree that Apple should at least agree to perform a low level re-flash for those bricked devices, if not fix the problem and make it working as it was before.

      Although, following the exact argument you mentioned, the phones are bricking precisely because of those "aftermarket parts" installed in it. Unmodified phones get along really well with the apple update, while the modified ones break. Which implies the aftermarket part is the sole cause of failure, and thus freeing Apple of any responsibility of fixing it.

      But I still insist that Apple could've put little more effort and taken precautions that unlocked phones don't brick (they didn't have to, but they could've, with little effort).
    • znicket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act apply to intellectual copyrighted property like the OS licence on the iPhone?

      The EULA specifically states that I, the customer, agree not to tamper with the software and if I do then: "5. Termination This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the iPhone Software and iPhone Software Updates.".
      The piece of technology I purchased is still mine - however without the OS it is fairly useless.
  • pnmoore, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6NOW, all the Apple fanboys, tell me Microsoft is the only evil company out there. I am not saying Microsoft is not evil, just that Apple is too. It will be interesting to see if Jobs has you so brainwashed that you think this is OK.
    You should be able to AT LEAST get your iPhone reset to factory and use it within the terms and conditions from then on. THAT would be a move by Apple showing that it cares about its customers...but it doesn't!
    • IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0n/m
    • IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Microsoft is pretty much not the evil out there now. It is Google and Apple. Apple wants to control the software AND the hardware, just as they have always done and prevent 3rd party apps. Google wants to be the only internet resource for finding things AND keep your personal information on their servers, however they can do it. Microsoft's worst offense is giving you a free brower and media player with your operating system.

      Gee, I'd be a bit more concerned about Apple and Google at this point. It is time to shift gears and face the true threats.
    • mynameisjesse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What a childish thing to say. A company is there to make money, it's a business. They think in terms of their best interests and finding that thin line between keep the customers happy and growing as a business. Neither Microsoft, nor Apple, is "evil". Allowing users to unlock so they can be used on any service takes money out of Apples pockets. Then there is the undisclosed deals between Apple and AT&T we don't know about.
      • IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0>Neither Microsoft, nor Apple, is "evil".

        What a childish thing to say? Holy crap, you must be new to the Internet. "Do no evil" is the Google manta. Anyone who has been following this stuff for more than a few months knows that. Second, Microsoft is personified as evil by most FOSS users. Ditto on the following remark.

        You might think Google is childish, but this is the mentality of the community. Get used to it.
        • mynameisjesse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No, I think it is childish to call any of them are evil. It is business.
          • IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You still have no resolved your comments with Google's own public mantra, which says Do No Evil. If Evil is not a qualification of business, then they cannot fulfill their own goals (ie. they are not capable of evil because no corporation is evil, according to you).

            Despite your sideline comments, my point remains valid: regardless of what semantic you want to use, your privacy, freedom and integrity are at risk not from Microsoft, but from Google and Apple now. Make sure you keep your eyes on the right company. Microsoft is not really a personal information broker, but Google is.
    • br0ken1128, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Being corporations, they are all evil by law .. ;)
  • diargasm, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Apple should be faced with a class-action lawsuit here. If they create software that will purposely destroy one of their products, even if the owner of the device installed 3rd party apps, then they are carrying out an unlawful practice. I understand their commitment of fighting people who hack the device for using another carrier besides AT&T, but when they get to the point of destroying the product that the consumer owns - not apple - then they are responsible for fixing that product.
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1But the update DOES NOT destroy the product! The bricked iPhone is in perfect, functioning order. All you have to do is use AT&T.
      • dustinmacdonald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually that's wrong, which is what's disturbing. Unlocked phones patched with the 1.1.1 update cannot be used with AT&T or any carrier at the moment. Apple is effectively "bricking" the phones.
  • diargasm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Apple isn't the government. Just like how the government can only auction/destroy your car for illegal modifications - not Toyota or Honda.
  • gllopc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Sorry, but just don't buy and iPhone if you're not happy with this. No one is making you buy the phone or update it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 89 of 89 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.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.