consumers in the US are legally allowed to unlock their mobile handsets after the US Register of Copyrights approved an exemption to the DMCA late last year, noting that “The underlying activity sought to be performed by the owner of the handset is to allow the handset to do what it was manufactured to do—lawfully connect to any carrier.” But don’t tell that to Apple and AT&T—unless the government bars them from locking out the unlocks, there’s virtually nothing stopping them from making sure that the unlocks mysteriously stop working.
But we have reason to believe that Apple may go much further than just “breaking” the SIM unlocks that have been released so far. One move that the cat (or is Apple the mouse?) could make in this game would be to permanently and irreparably brick unlocked iPhones when they run this month’s pending software update. It would serve as a warning shot to potential unlockers in the future—even if crafty hackers manage to rewrite their unlock apps to get around the changes made in the update, they could always be at risk of suddenly owning a shiny $400 chunk of metal and plastic.
#19 only as a deterrent…
and, of course, if a fanboy’s get’s iBricked, he will dutyfully go to an AppleStore and buy another one…
We need to be clear that there are two “unlocks”, one merely allows you to add 3rd party applications to the OSX iPhone operating system, the other allows different mobile carriers access to the phone hardware and software to make and receive calls.
If you purchased and iPhone and never activated via AT&T then you should be able under the DMCA to choose your carrier. If you chose AT&T and signed a contract with them then that is your obligation to live with the contract or pay the termination clause fee.
Adding 3rd party apps to the iPhone (which is a miniature OSX powered computer) should be no different than adding 3rd party programs to a Powerbook etc. Apple should treat the iPhone as a computer not as just a phone.
#14 You ope? think different! And the rebate was not in cash and for half the price cut, not a full compensation.
#17 the bricked phone will not be using AT&T. That’s why they’ll be bricked.
#22 but it is different (they thought so) to add third party apps to the oy!Phone. That’s why they blocked that. I wouldn’t be surprised if they slam the door on the app hack too.
#23 you got a point there…
“#17 the bricked phone will not be using AT&T. That’s why they’ll be bricked.”
Apple won’t “brick” the phones. First it would be illegal to purposely render useless someone else’s property. Second, Apple knows they and AT&T would have a huge class action lawsuit on their hands if they did anything like this. If you don’t think there would be a line of lawyers to the courthouse filing claims think again. Not to mention several States Attorneys General asking embarrassing questions.
*
This brings up a point I came across a short while back. Most of these companies require arbitration to settle disputes. Only these “arbitrators” rule for the telecoms something like 95% of the time. If you have a dispute, before agreeing to a specific arbitrator, ask to see his last ten or twenty disputes. Ask to see the briefs and all evidential material submitted. If more than half are unfavorable to the consumer or if he refuses to release the information then refuse his services as biased. You may also contact the consumers and ask their opinion of the arbitrator.
Remember, you are not obligated to accept any arbitrator that you reasonably believe to be biased, even if you have agreed to accept arbitration. If there is no mutually acceptable arbitrator then you may resort to Small Claims Court which has a far better climate for consumers.
Why, oh why, do the people that hack things or find workarounds always blare their triumphs from the highest mountaintop? To share their success with others, yes, but doing so also attracts unwanted attention. In this case, Apple’s. I’ve hacked a few items, found workarounds, etc, but I keep my mouth shut. Call me selfish, but at least what I’ve done to some of my possessions doesn’t attract the attention of The Powers That Be. I check on the internets to see if what I’ve done has been done by someone else already, but if there’s no mention of it, well then, I guess I’ve found buried treasure..
Why is Microsoft called the evil empire?
Apple is a hardware company whose intention is to lock the user into everything Apple.
Read John’s article on the future of Apple as is quite interesting.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1923151,00.asp
Cheers
Wow… I bricked my second phone this year last week. I am having a bad year for phones. Even at $400 this phone is simply too expensive for my blood. Once they get down to the $150 dollar range I am there, but for now, for an actual cell phone user… simply too much money.
#27 that article is one of the more absurd ones I’ve ever read. No one switched? Wrong – maybe not large corporations but lots of individuals have. I’m always running into folks that have Windows at work, because they have to, and a Mac at home – when they make the choice. Plenty of others are choosing Macs instead of Windows machines. Small gains in market share but certainly not none. Peripherials not working? What a joke. I’ve never purchased a peripheral that didn’t work EASILY on a Mac. Everyone I know who uses Windows is always moaning about having to install this or that driver etc. What’s John been smoking?
I love it…apple is simply protecting their hardware.
Don’t want to be locked into their hardware or AT&T’s network, don’t buy the iPhone.
It’s pretty easy, really.
Funny how the FUD in the linked-article only points to how popular the iPhone is… and that the only two things holding-back sales are the price, and the 2-year AT&T lock-in.
They’ve already lowered the price – not enough, but its a good start – and only have to pay just-enough lip-service to blocking hacks, to keep AT&T execs from blowing a gasket.
Kick-backs from AT&T is chump-change compared to what Apple could get if a significant number of people feel it is safe to buy an iPhone – with the express intention of using it on networks other than AT&T’s.
And its not like 100% of iPhone buyers will hack their phone, so AT&T will still be signing-up a steady flow of new iPhone users – and Apple will still get a ton-o-cash from AT&T.
…there’s virtually nothing stopping them from making sure that the unlocks mysteriously stop working.
What a crock of cripes.
“virtually nothing”???
“mysteriously”???
How about class-action lawsuits out the ying-yang after they flagrantly ignore a recent legal exemption to the DCMA?
The Copyright Office’s exemption to the DMCA means Apple can screw with the people providing/selling the unlocking software – which is still a violation of the DMCA – but they can’t screw with consumers who unlock their phones for the purpose of using them on another network.
#27 – Microsoft is called the “evil empire” basically because they suck. They suck because of that screaming bald moron that proves the rate of the pack is determined by the speed of the leader.
#29 “I’m always running into folks that have Windows at work, because they have to, and a Mac at home – when they make the choice. ”
Funny from my experience it was the other way around with so many people I know in advertising. Two very good friends of mine who are very good graphic designers both use Macs at work but have PCs at home. So WTF?
#32 “…screaming bald moron…” Steve Jobs? WTF?
Cheers
#29 mac may have risen its marketshare a bit. But that’s explainable with just one word: bootcamp. And if something you bought on a mac store doesn’t work with a mac, let me know.
#32 – I always enjoy reading an unbiased, objective opinion.
1 – The article is a big pile of FUD
2 – see above.
As soon as I saw the amount of weasel words in the extract I knew it to be bullshit.
Yes Apple MIGHT brick phones, just as we MIGHT get unlimited amounts of sunshine from an orange. Are either of these likely, or do they have any evidence of happening? No.
Poor choice for posting SN, this is an Uncle Dave post at best.
#36, Gregory,
Poor choice for posting SN, this is an Uncle Dave post at best.
Phukhat. There is nothing wrong about this topic. Several people found it interesting enough to post something. Remember, if you don’t have anything to say, don’t say it.
So I guess in your opinion, the pilot of the Exxon Valdez should have been forced to pay the cost of cleanup of the Alaskan coast, out of his own pocket?
#38 – I think you know what I mean and your “question” is at best, disingenuous.
Who’s pointing at disingenious questions?