The BBC are reporting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7017660.stm) that a new software update from Apple leaves "hacked" iPhones permanently inoperable.

The story reports that:

On Monday Apple issued a statement in which it said many of the unauthorised iPhone unlocking programs caused "irreparable damage" to the device's software.

The company said this would "likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed".

That warning has now proved correct as many owners are reporting their phones no longer work following installation of the update.

The BBC are reporting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7017660.stm) that a new software update from Apple leaves "hacked" iPhones permanently inoperable.

The story reports that:

On Monday Apple issued a statement in which it said many of the unauthorised iPhone unlocking programs caused "irreparable damage" to the device's software.

The company said this would "likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed".

That warning has now proved correct as many owners are reporting their phones no longer work following installation of the update.
Apple purposely created the new firmware to check for an unlocked phone and cause it not to work. This is all the fault of Apple. It would be one thing if after applying the new firmware, the phone was no longer unlocked (which Apple could have done), but instead they decided to cause the phones to simply not work.

I believe, though, that it's not only "unlocked" phones which are stopping working, but also those "locked" ones on which additional "unapproved" software has been installed.

I can see major lawsuits in the near future as a result of this...

I can see major lawsuits in the near future as a result of this...

I see a lot less Apple business as a result of this.

It's not a good idea to rely on MSM for technical information. They got the details wrong this time.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/iphone-firmware-111-out-and-tested-breaks-3rd+party-apps-relocks-iphones-and-sends-them-to-semi+brick-activation-limbo-updated-with-video-304497.php

The phones aren't completely dead. It appears that they have reverted to a fresh out of the box pre-activation state.

I can see major lawsuits in the near future as a result of this...

I see alot of people waiting for the hack to resurface again before updating to the latest version. Why would you update your friggin phone if you knew App$e would be releasing an update to lock you out of your phone?

Bottom Line: It was hacked successfully once, it's only a matter of hours before it's hacked again and Apple becomes $ony pursuing PSP homebrew users. Problem is, they can never plug the holes. :smack:

My understanding is that when the iphones are purchased, customers have to sign a contract agreeing not to do this kind of stuff. If that's correct, they'll get no sympathy from me. You can hate rules and restrictions or even the companies that rely on them all you like. But if you're going to do business with them, you should be prepared to abide by those rules or else suffer the consequences with a little dignity (i.e., don't go whining about it).

My understanding is that when the iphones are purchased, customers have to sign a contract agreeing not to do this kind of stuff. If that's correct, they'll get no sympathy from me. You can hate rules and restrictions or even the companies that rely on them all you like. But if you're going to do business with them, you should be prepared to abide by those rules or else suffer the consequences with a little dignity (i.e., don't go whining about it).

I know a couple of Iphone owners, and they said they did not have to sign a contract.

But it is true that there are clauses buried in the warranty that specifically excludes from the warranty coverage any damage if you install unapproved third party apps.

Refusing to cover unauthorized apps is understandable; releasing an upgrade that freezes all Iphones with those apps is something else. They have set themselves up for a class action lawsuit. They will likely lose the suit because I bet they bricked the Iphones deliberately.

But nevermind the lawsuit. What they have done is a PR fiasco, and it will soon grow to be a major PR clusterf***. I give it two weeks before Apple caves, apologizes, and releases a new update that won't brick your Iphone.

I know a couple of Iphone owners, and they said they did not have to sign a contract.

But it is true that there are clauses buried in the warranty that specifically excludes from the warranty coverage any damage if you install unapproved third party apps.

Refusing to cover unauthorized apps is understandable; releasing an upgrade that freezes all Iphones with those apps is something else. They have set themselves up for a class action lawsuit. They will likely lose the suit because I bet they bricked the Iphones deliberately.

But nevermind the lawsuit. What they have done is a PR fiasco, and it will soon grow to be a major PR clusterf***. I give it two weeks before Apple caves, apologizes, and releases a new update that won't brick your Iphone.

It is not clear that they bricked the phones. Some have said they merely set them back to unauthorized and you can reauthorize them at ATT. However, what makes you think this is Apple's fault. I am sure this is an ATT requirement for subsidizing the cost of the phone in the exclusive contract.

Dale

Hi,

Not to be mean here but good for Apple in asserting some control over their product.

People buy Apple, not me, for the control they exert over their products and now want to complain when it adversely affects them.

This is no different than me hacking the rom on my Axim and bricking it and wanting Dell to replace it because I did something I should not have done.

No sympathy here from me, you play fast and loose, you accept the outcome.

Everyone had fair warning of this possibility and knows Apple's fanatical control of their toys they produce.

Don't like it, do not buy from them.

I like this and maybe it will give users pause next time they hack their phone that they may brick it.

These users got caught and now want to whine about it, they need not bother me.

I mean, who said to hack the phone and then to install an update they knew would brick the phone?

Good learning experience for all of us.

Now I am off to install the latest cooked rom for my axim from XDA Developers.

Just kidding on the last, already did it knowing and accepting the possibilty of making it a brick.

And only blaming myself for it, should it occur.

David

My understanding is that when the iphones are purchased, customers have to sign a contract agreeing not to do this kind of stuff. If that's correct, they'll get no sympathy from me. You can hate rules and restrictions or even the companies that rely on them all you like. But if you're going to do business with them, you should be prepared to abide by those rules or else suffer the consequences with a little dignity (i.e., don't go whining about it).
It is 100% legal to be able to unlock your phone (in the USA) to use it with a different provider. So what Apple is doing is maybe not so legal.

Apple is at fault because they wrote the software. The software harmed Apple's customers. Why they wrote it is irrelevant.

It is not clear that they bricked the phones. Some have said they merely set them back to unauthorized and you can reauthorize them at ATT. However, what makes you think this is Apple's fault. I am sure this is an ATT requirement for subsidizing the cost of the phone in the exclusive contract.

Dale

The Iphone is not subsidized (yet). Everyone who bought one through ATT paid the list price.

Furthermore, the contract that Apple had with ATT is irrelevant to the people who bought an Iphone from an Apple store. Apple has no legal right to tell me I cannot run other software on my Iphone. They can refuse to support it, certainly. They have no obligation to test the upgrade to make sure that it doesn't break the third party software. Okay, fine.

But I think they deliberately made the upgrade restore only the unlocked Iphone to factory settings.

This reminds me of the "silver bullet" that cable companies put out some years ago to kill off "unauthorized" decoder boxes. Basically, they were trying to prevent folks from getting decoder boxes from anywhere but the cable company. I don't recall what came of it directly, but I do notice that 3rd party decoder boxes are no longer considered taboo.

I see what you're saying Harpgliss, but I also think that this is a bit different from what you're viewing it as. You mention bricking an Axim and trying to get Dell to replace it. Trouble is, there's not really another product that's analogous to this.

If I buy a Nokia phone from Cingular, they lock it. I can go to any of scores of web services and get it unlocked. I'm still bound by my contract, unless I payed full price and declined to sign a contract. Neither Nokia, nor Cingular is harmed in any way by my unlocking my phone so that I can use it on another service if I should choose to do so at some point.

What's happening with these iPhones is that folks are buying them at full price, no subsidy. Evidently, in a lot of cases, they're not signing any sort of contract to use any particular service. They're unlocking those phones and using them with the service of their choice (something which has been established practice for other phones for some time).

If Apple releases an update that, as an accidental side effect, bricks them, that's one thing, if they set out as a specific goal to do so, that's another. I tend to agree that they would likely lose a law suit (and almost certainly face one) under that circumstance. :shrug:

Exercising control over the use of Hardware is not something that most folks are prepared to accept. Exercising it over software is a somewhat different matter, though I can see Microsoft getting sued out of existence if they were to deliberately send out something that permanently locked up the OS if someone hooked up, say, a printer of a particular brand or something to it.

Declining to support something isn't the same as messing with the function of something that was already working. :shrug:

If Apple releases an update that, as an accidental side effect, bricks them, that's one thing, if they set out as a specific goal to do so, that's another. I tend to agree that they would likely lose a law suit (and almost certainly face one) under that circumstance. :shrug:


The only "get out of gaol free" card they might be able to play is the fact that they told people in advance that this would be what the update would do. They could well argue, therefore, that customers applied the update in the full knowledge of what the effect was likely to be.

Hi,

Analogies aside, and maybe mine were bad, but people who installed software that was not designed to run on the Iphone accept that bad things could happen to it from either bad software or an update from Apple.

I understand Sony is this way with the PSP updates for their firmware also.

I just feel if you did the unlock thing when it was not supported from Apple, you took a chance it would break the phone.

I would be upset also but at me and not Apple.

David

What I wonder is if the kid who unload the iPhone has an unlocked phone after the firmware update. He did it by opening the phone and some sort of soldering.

All analogies break down at some point, it can't be helped. :shrug: ... people who installed software that was not designed to run on the Iphone accept that bad things could happen to it from either bad software or an update from Apple.Point, and a very good one. If that's as far as it went, and assuming that it wasn't deliberately meant to cause "bad things," I'd agree with you entirely.

The part I have a problem with is where they evidently are deliberately damaging a phone that has simply been unlocked. A very common, perfectly legal, and not even slightly unreasonable action. :shrug:

I understand Sony is this way with the PSP updates for their firmware also.Yup, and they're notorious for it (though I should note they haven't followed the same pattern with the Reader :nice:). However, on the PSP updates, Sony just disables the hacks and closes the holes they were made through. They don't cause the PSP to cease to function. And they're not targeting units that say, have non-Sony peripherals connected to them (there's not really a similar aspect to locking in any other industry).

I just feel if you did the unlock thing when it was not supported from Apple, you took a chance it would break the phone.See the unlocking isn't so much adding as it is removing. I started to say that no handset manufacturer supported unlocking, but that's not so, acutally -- every handset manufacturer supports both locking and unlocking. Otherwise they couldn't be used by multiple carriers. Unless Apple wants to claim that they never, ever intend to do business with any other carrier, they can't claim their handset doesn't support unlocking. In fact, the fact that it can be unlocked is an undeniable indication that the thing does, in fact, support unlocking -- the detail that they don't want us doing it isn't really relevant to that point.

Apple apparently has some sort of exclusivity agreement with AT&T, presumably for some period of time, and they're trying to force everyone who buys their handset to go along with that plan.

Usually those exclusivity agreements include a subsidy, but all concerned insist that there isn't one. I can only assume that the reason that the agreement exists is that AT&T pays Apple for each iPhone subscriber (whereas, Verizon, say, doesn't), so Apple is trying to force its customers to use the service that gives it kickbacks. In another setting that would be considered corruption. Here it's just aggressive marketing.

However, if they've deliberately targeted those who bought their handsets legally and without contractual obligation, who unlocked their phones (again, a common and very legal practice here in the U.S.) because they wanted to go with another carrier, then I think they've crossed a big, bold, brutally obvious line, and I don't think they've got any standing there.

They've probably just blocked a bunch of folks from being able to use the phone service they've paid for, remember -- it's not too difficult to think of situations where that could cause pretty serious harm, so any civil damages could get ... significant.

I have an iPhone (not modded) and it upgraded fine. Not only did Apple send out a press release ahead of time about the possibility of bricking a modded phone, they also had a warning dialogue box at the beginning of the upgrade process that you had to click through. So, imo, anyone who went ahead with the upgrade process knew what they were doing.

Apparently, modding the iPhone is against the EULA. Also, from reading the gadget blogs (and not from personal experience), one kind of unlocking will only get negated, it won't brick the iPhone, just make it only work with an AT&T sim. Another kind will indeed brick the iPhone. An 3rd-party apps don't work anymore, but - again, from what I've read - they don't brick the iPhone, either.

I have no problem with someone wishing to mod their iPhone if they want to, but they also know going in that it isn't sanctioned and that Bad Things Can Happen.

Apparently, modding the iPhone is against the EULA.Even if it is, a software unlock shouldn't qualify as a mod, any more than entering your contact numbers should -- it's flipping a switch that's built into the device. :shrug:

Also, from reading the gadget blogs (and not from personal experience), one kind of unlocking will only get negated, it won't brick the iPhone, just make it only work with an AT&T sim. Another kind will indeed brick the iPhone. An 3rd-party apps don't work anymore, but - again, from what I've read - they don't brick the iPhone, either.If that's the case, then that's probably fine -- even if re-locking the phone is a bit obnoxious. As long as the software unlock works again after the upgrade, then there's no real harm done. If not ... then they're itchin' for a lawsuit.

...

If that's the case, then that's probably fine -- even if re-locking the phone is a bit obnoxious. As long as the software unlock works again after the upgrade, then there's no real harm done.

...

From what Erica Sadun has written over on TUAW:

5 things you need to know about the iphone 1.1.1 update (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/28/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-iphone-1-1-1-update/)

It might be a while before any more unlocking and/or modding is being done.

:disappoin

Apple is doing a great job of pissing off customers. Way to go Apple.

Apple is doing a great job of pissing off customers. Way to go Apple.


Some customers. I love my Apple hoard. :D

Apple is doing a great job of pissing off customers. Way to go Apple.

Seems like there are way more non-Apple customers who are pissed off at Apple for this.

Most of the comments I've seen on the boards run along the lines of '...it's not fair... I wouldn't buy one even if they ever get to be available here!' but people need to get real; during the 'Sermon on the Mount' - sorry, the iPhone launch - Steve Jobs said, loud and clear, 'no third party apps'; surely, given the amount of media attention iPhone has had, anyone who bought one (or two!) cannot have been in any way ignorant of exactly what they were buying - and what they can and cannot do with it.

Of course, if you buy something it's yours; you can do what you like with it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to fill up my petrol-engined Mercedes with diesel just because I can, even though people said I shouldn't. A certain level of common sense is generally required to maintain what we call 'a life'.

I quite fancy a Sony Reader, but as I'm in the UK I can't buy one without ( I believe) breaking the EULA, voiding the warranty, and jumping thorough all kinds of hoops to get onto the Sony Connect store. None of which, I'm prepared to do - though others on this board have, and I respect their reasons for doing so. AFAIK, Sony don't specifically advise you not to plug in their 110v charger into a 240v socket, but can you imagine their response if you tried to make a warranty claim for doing so, from a country where they don't distribute?

Apple have been voluble in advising people that the update might cause problems with iPhones that have been modded (even though such mods are apparently against the EULA); if people go ahead and perform the update anyway, then tough.

Apple told you they were going to tell you. They told you. Now they're telling you they told you.

FFS! You're adults; deal with it like adults (i.e. without running to your lawyers crying 'it's just not fair...') <shakes head in disbelief>

I'm not saying to run to a lawyer to sue Apple. The best way to get at Apple is to not buy any of their products.

I have read a lot of posts from people pissed at Apple for screwing them over (to paraphrase). First the price drop right away and now the firmware update. And this is from iPhone owners, not just people who don't own one.

Seems like there are way more non-Apple customers who are pissed off at Apple for this.:laugh4:

I love it! And I quite agree about the extra apps. (I think it's a dumb move on their part, but they're allowed to be dumb. In U.S. civil courts dumbness seems to increase your likelihood of winning, more often that not.)

However, I still think they're out of line on the unlocking thing. :shrug:

Are any of those posts from people other than geeks? I doubt if most iPhone owners unlocked their phone or added on 3rd-party apps. My guess is that most iPhone owners updated with no problems and are enjoying the added features. :)

(Just imo, of course.)

I'd guess you're right there, Studio717. :grin2:

:laugh4:
...And I quite agree about the extra apps.... I think it's a dumb move on their part...

I regard iPhone as a work in progress; just because you can't get third-party apps right now, it doesn't mean you won't be able to download an Apple (or Apple approved) Outlook-compatible email client for iPhone from iTunes Store in future - or a notes app., Word, whatever - for a price, of course.

I'm not saying to run to a lawyer to sue Apple. The best way to get at Apple is to not buy any of their products.

Ahh, but that would be an awfully dull place without anyone buying Apple products; hard to imagine, actually, for all their faults:D

And yes, I agree; lawyers are best kept in their place - in court, suing each other:laugh4:

And yes, I agree; lawyers are best kept in their place - in court, suing each other:laugh4:Somehow, I misread that the first time, I thought it said "eating" instead of "suing" -- still made sense. :grin:

Apple did a more or less similar thing with the new iPods: they made it extremely difficult to use them with anything different than iTunes. More information (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/14/new-ipods-reengineer.html)

I quite fancy a Sony Reader, but as I'm in the UK I can't buy one without ( I believe) breaking the EULA, voiding the warranty, and jumping thorough all kinds of hoops to get onto the Sony Connect store.

You've slightly lost me. In what way does buying a Reader in the UK break the EULA? (I live in the UK and have a Reader)

AFAIK, Sony don't specifically advise you not to plug in their 110v charger into a 240v socket, but can you imagine their response if you tried to make a warranty claim for doing so, from a country where they don't distribute?

The Reader has a switched-mode power supply which will happily work on any voltage from 100-250v. I honestly can't recall buying any portable device for years which has had an old-fashioned fixed-voltage power supply; can you?

You've slightly lost me. In what way does buying a Reader in the UK break the EULA? (I live in the UK and have a Reader)

Sorry, poorly worded on my part; I was referring to content from the Connect store, rather than the Reader itself; I'd mentally made that leap, but it didn't come across in the writing; I blame the beer, myself...:wink:

As I said, I don't have a Reader or access to Connect so haven't had the opportunity to study the EULA, which I presumed to be country or region-specific. If not, then fair enough, my mistake...

The Reader has a switched-mode power supply which will happily work on any voltage from 100-250v. I honestly can't recall buying any portable device for years which has had an old-fashioned fixed-voltage power supply; can you?

Yes, you're right; most mains adapters are now multi-voltage, so perhaps a bad choice of example - but I'm sure you understand the point I'm making with this Harry.

Apple at least gave fair warning that hacked iPhones may be damaged by the update, yet people still went ahead anyway.

And just out of interest, who's to say the next Sony software update won't brick the hacked Readers out there? The more I look at large companies (especially with closed systems) the less I find myself thinking "why would they do that?" - and more 'why wouldn't they do that?"

And just out of interest, who's to say the next Sony software update won't brick the hacked Readers out there?We actually did have some hacks locked out in the first update back in February, but this most recent one hasn't bothered them at all. Not conclusive, of course, but a good sign. :shrug:

And just out of interest, who's to say the next Sony software update won't brick the hacked Readers out there? The more I look at large companies (especially with closed systems) the less I find myself thinking "why would they do that?" - and more 'why wouldn't they do that?"
Sony would not purposely brick hacked readers. The worst case would be that the hacks would be lost and you'd get the defaults based on that version of the update. Then you can either put the hacks back like happened with the current update or you can wait till someone fixes the hacks to work with the new update if need be.

Definitely a PR mess, but I think the legality is unknown. It will be interesting to see if anyone actually goes to the courts about the contract locking issue. It's a lot of effort, when the affected parties would probably be better off selling their iPhones and switching to a Neo1973.

I can't imagine buying a device this capable that I couldn't load 3rd party applications onto. If I had been crazy enough to do so and then had used hacks to add software on anyway, I wouldn't use an update until I knew additional hacks would let me keep using my 3rd party apps.

Sony would not purposely brick hacked readers.

Who says Apple have 'purposely bricked the iPhones'?

Sorry but Apple don't have responsibility for the consequences of unauthorised mods.

And how much sympathy would you get from Sony if you carried out an unauthorised mod that resulted in bricking the machine either immediately or when you installed an update?

Apple's idea is to keep thier stuff way too restricted. Apple has screwed over the iPod classic models good. They not force you to use iTunes instead of any thrid part program for getting your content to and from the ipod. So any platform that doesn't have a version of iTunes is well and truly screwed. That is a great way to sell stuff. Apple is all about screwing the user.

Hah. In something slightly unrelated, it sounds like Apple and AT&T might be good bedfellows.

AT&T threatens to disconnect subscribers who criticize the company. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070930-att-threatens-to-disconnect-subscribers-who-are-critical-of-the-company.html)

Apple's idea is to keep thier stuff way too restricted. Apple has screwed over the iPod classic models good. They not force you to use iTunes instead of any thrid part program for getting your content to and from the ipod. So any platform that doesn't have a version of iTunes is well and truly screwed. That is a great way to sell stuff. Apple is all about screwing the user.

Actually, I use a free program called Media Monkey to sync my music instead of Itunes. I haven't checked, but I'm sure there must be other progs to use.

Ephpod is supposedly a robust application synicng with an iPod.
Hymn for removing the DRM from purchased songs purchased (Not meant for stealing but for being able to port songs to mp3 format).

There must be even more options than just using Itunes, if you really felt like it. It just really gets my goat that I can't readily share the music that my wife bought on her Mac from Itunes.

Vincent

Apple's idea is to keep thier stuff way too restricted. Apple has screwed over the iPod classic models good. They not force you to use iTunes instead of any thrid part program for getting your content to and from the ipod. So any platform that doesn't have a version of iTunes is well and truly screwed. That is a great way to sell stuff. Apple is all about screwing the user.

A rather extreme view, Jon. Windows and the Mac together cover - what? - 99.5% of PC users, I'd guess? That seems like reasonable market coverage to me. How many people don't have access to a machine running either Windows or OSX?

Well, it's what Apple is doing now with their non desktop/laptop devices. They are trying to keep them so closed up as to prevent third parties from developing software to work with them. It's not a good idea.

That kind of attitude is what put Apple so far behind starting in the late 80's -- when everybody and their dog was cloning PC's, Apple was suing Lazer Computing (I think that's the right name), the only company ever to clone the Apple ][, out of existence for its temerity in said cloning.

I'm just amazed Apple has survived for so long.

The wouldn't have if M$ hadn't bought a large chunk of them just to keep their "biggest competitor" in business so they'd have fewer monopoly suits to defend. :grin:

I knew that somehow, somewhere it was Microsoft's fault ;-)

Who else's fault could it be? :D

I'm just amazed Apple has survived for so long.

I rather suspect they wouldn't have done had it not been for that stroke of genius - the iPod. I believe that's where the majority of their income is from these days, rather than computer sales.

Who else's fault could it be? :D

Sony's? I'm sure that Jon would somehow manage to make it Sony's fault :).

He's quite creative that way — but I notice he keeps buying PRS's. :D

Sony's? I'm sure that Jon would somehow manage to make it Sony's fault :).
Sony did not have to release this new DRM scheme until it was ready for the real world. But then, Fox did not have to realse DVDs using it as well. So I would have to say it's the fault of both Fox and Sony,

I rather suspect they wouldn't have done had it not been for that stroke of genius - the iPod. I believe that's where the majority of their income is from these days, rather than computer sales.

Hi, Harry,

Actually, most numbers I've seen have the laptops providing "52% of its revenue growth in the company's most recent quarter"*, not to mention that their market share is growing faster than PCs (granted, from a much smaller percentage).

And re: the bricking:

Apparently, the new update has been 'unlocked' so to speak - including, apparently, going so far as to unbrick previously bricked (due to the unlocking) iPhones. See the blog posts on TUAW and others for the specifics.

-----

* Link to article on bloggingstocks.com: Apple (AAPL) notebooks sales keep growing (http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/11/apple-aapl-notebook-sales-keep-growing/)

Apparently, the new update has been 'unlocked' so to speak - including, apparently, going so far as to unbrick previously bricked (due to the unlocking) iPhones. See the blog posts on TUAW and others for the specifics.I'm a bit surprised it took so long. :grin:

GO HACKERS!

HACKERS 2
apple 0

It's been a bit harder to achieve this time with Apple encrypting even more stuff.