[NatCh]

All analogies break down at some point, it can't be helped.

Originally Posted by Harpgliss

... 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.

Originally Posted by Harpgliss

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 ). 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).

Originally Posted by Harpgliss

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.