digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

A note to both Apple and iPhone customers on the v1.1.1 update

engadget.com — We're in a unique position here at Engadget, acting as a voice for the technology community, while simultaneously interacting with and trying to make sense of the moves of the companies our readership patronizes...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bjarkebech, on 10/10/2007, -7/+54Hope this reaches apple, like engadget's letter to palm
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I hope it also reach all of the customers.
    • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -20/+15It won't. Apple is a heartless company, who does not care about its customers. I'm glad to see their finally showing their true colors. Maybe the apple fanboys will finally realize that apple is just as evil as microsoft.
      • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -14/+10damn applefanboys, digging me down for telling the truth.
        • haydesigner, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Well, I dugg you down because you just spouted off anti-Apple rhetoric without even attempting to make a supporting case for your beliefs. Post some facts (note: plural), and maybe we will Digg you up. Say things like "Just as evil as XYZ" and nothing else, we'll Digg you down.
          • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Umm, this article shows the facts.

            Applefanboys - like shooting fish in a barrel.
          • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Oh, and btw, I was being sarcastic. Though I still think that apple and Microsoft are equally evil.
    • pcgeek101, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14At least Microsoft provides SDKs and free tools (Visual Studio Express, SQL Server Express, etc. etc.) to develop on their platform. Pretty impressive stuff out there on the Microsoft side for developers ... C#/.NET anyone? :-)
      • Scorps111, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Visual Studio Sucks donkey *****
        • descensiongod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's still there for you to use though.
      • HesNikke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I dunno, I think I like the FULL SDK's that apple provides for free (speach) WITH it's desktop platform more than the crippled trialware that microsoft buries deep in its website. or even better the free (beer) SDKs on Linux! (and the core of Apples)
    • gregdigg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I don't think it was ever in question that Apple and Microsoft are equally evil. They're both corporate entities whose primary goal is to make money. Apple just makes better products is all.
  • dgblackout, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Apple really needs to get their finger out before it comes out in the UK, if they manage that, i'll be in line waiting for one, otherwise, i'm waiting until it's hacked again.
  • llsethj, on 10/10/2007, -22/+51Apple is totally out of control now. Reselling customers music to them as ringtones, self destructing iPhones...what is next? Deleting "illegal" music and videos off of peoples machines?! I can't wait for that iTunes update!
    • drewmangroup, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Yeah they will make you send in the proof of purchase and receipt for all ripped CDs.
    • giroguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4the ringtones is more the labels and carriers.. at least you get more choice for a 1 then a crapped down version of the latest crappy pop song by bryt,, or 50 or whoever.. i still like the general ringer though, the noise a phone should make.
      • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Indeed, the ringtones thing is a separate licence for a performance right I believe.
    • haydesigner, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Yeah, TOTALLY out of control...
      :::rolls eyes:::
    • adamgamble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Dude you can hardly call this a self destructing iPhone. These people did something with their device that it was not intended for, and also were warned before hand, then the user had to install (
      • Ajaxpeapod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yea, we installed 3rd party apps (just like any computer or other smart phone) and we tried to have the freedom to use it on any other GSM carrier we wanted (including markets AT&T isn't available in). Thanks to Apple/AT&T our $$$ has been washed down the drain because they released an update that INTENTIONALLY bricked our phones. I appreciate the warning from Apple, but they have no right to take $600 from me once, lower the price (which I was fine with) then KILL MY PHONE, forcing me to either forfeit my AT&T contract or BUY another phone for $400. Thanks AT&T. Think about a computer that would die if you installed any independent apps on it... how happy would you be?
        • milarepa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dude. if you unlocked your phone, why the hell did you upgrade?! you stupid or something?
  • Weather, on 10/10/2007, -7/+80Finally an article about Apple!
  • davesousa, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5I'm sick of this *****.... right when I'm ready to make the switch form windows PC, to an apple machine they go and screw there customers like this... this is sum sort of bad joke... they just like screwing themselves...
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8You didn't even read the article did you? It is likely Apple hasn't intentionally screwed anyone.
    • SPThom, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Mac != iPhone. OS X is still a great operating system and its BSD underpinnings make it as open as you want it to be. As much as Apple looks like the bad guy here, I tend to think their biggest fault is bowing to the demands of AT&T and music companies. But those are some of the compromises that come out of entering a new market.

      Don't let it dissuade you from making the switch, though.
  • crees!, on 10/10/2007, -18/+23Engadget is on an iPhone-frenzy ego-trip. Enough of these 1.1.1 update postings.
    • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15If there is public interest then what's the problem with Engadget blogging about it. If you don't like the Apple updates then skip over them. Why do some people find it so hard to skip over topics that don't interest them!
    • spiffytech, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Engadget has an iPhone-less feed for anyone who's tired of iPhone news.

      http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/20/tired-of-iphone ...
  • bizmowacka, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8without a doubt apple is the new microsoft (except worse)
    • dezmd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2nah, apple cant even get the evil monopolizer thing right, they're entire history is littered with more ***** done 'wrong' with the ***** done 'right' not capturing real market share (until ipod)
  • codyman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22Wow... talk about an essay... good points though throughout though...
  • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7Get over it. Please.
  • OS2Guy, on 10/10/2007, -28/+13Engadget does not represent the Mac nor the iPhone community whatsoever. It is over-zealous of them to even consider themselves to be in a "unique" position. For that matter, Gizmodo and ten other web sites could make the same claim. The bottom line here is that Apple owns the iPhone and its innards and every iPhone buyer must agree to the license requirement to use the iPhone. If they break that license agreement they risk the loss of use of the iPhone. To whine like this publicly is childish and the lowest of consumerism. Engadget should apologize to Apple and to every iPhone customer for claiming to be in a "unique position" as acting as the go-between because there is no such go-between to begin with. Apple will add their own features to the iPhone in due time. If the iPhone user doesn't like that then they can sell off their iPhone and move to Sprint, T-Mobile or Verizon and buy one of their "smart" phones. There are more than a million and now closing in on two million iPhone owners and we want our iPhone investment protected from hackers and unauthorized third party programs that can cause harm to our investment.
    • alperea, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14you're a slave, dude
    • martalli, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3On first hearing of this, I thought that Apple users were once again being their old whiney selves. These are folks who have set class action lawsuits against Apple because their ipod screens got scratched in their pockets! (before the video ipod no less).

      However, engagdet has written a fairly balanced discussion on this. In the end, my main impression is that Apple should have had a developer kit from the beginning, so that apps for the ipod could be developed without somehow voiding a warranty. I am not talking about unlocking SIMs, but just simply having third party apps like epocrates (http://epocrates.com) that can go a long way in improving the functionality of a device.
    • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Ya volt! We bow to our Nazi overlords!
      • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I know butchering languages is fun, but next time try, "Ja wohl meine gestapo menschen"
    • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I see you conveniently skipped over the "Now, we're not going to assume we could possibly be the arbiter of a discussion so complex as this" part. Like it or not, Engadget are in an influential position in the community and so what they say does carry weight, along with other top blogs. You just took the "unique position" comment, tossed in a literal pedantic spin, and ran with it.
    • ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Engadget wasn't elected, and they dont have a BatPhone straight to Apple HQ. So they are NOT in a "Unique Position."

      I'm sorry if when you bought the phone you bought it for what feature you thought you could hack it to do. My brother bought a PSP for the warez community. It got too complicated and he had to keep up with it too much, so now the PSP gathers dust. Does he blame Sony for the updates? No.
      • rmjb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Engadget wasn't elected, and they dont have a BatPhone straight to Apple HQ. So they are NOT in a "Unique Position.""

        They may, it's been said many times across the internet that many industry big wigs read Engadget, from Bill Gates, Ed Colligan (Palm) and even higher ups in Apple. Like it or not, Engadget has a lot of influence now.
    • DaveMode, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I almost thought you were making an objective, unbiased comment - then I saw the icon next to your name....
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"The bottom line here is that Apple owns the iPhone and its innards"

      That's where you're wrong. What do people pay all that money for then? Sure you have to agree to their terms of use, but violating those terms should only void your warranty, nothing more, nothing less. Voided warranty simply means that you are no longer eligible for service and support from Apple, it does not mean that Apple has the right to render your device useless. That said, if you are going to hack your iPhone, it's probably wise not to run any software updates on the device. This applies to any device, not just the iPhone.
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4That is the most sheepish comment I think I've ever heard.

      "Please, control my computing and gadget experience. I don't want to do whatever I want with my own things or to actually enjoy them how I'd like. I can only do what you say and when you say and how you say and anyone to would speak badly about that is just a childish consumerist."

      Here's what is happening here, and not just here, but all throughout the electronics market:
      You go to a car dealer. You buy the most beautiful, solid, reliable car with all the fancy bells and whistles. You love it and you drive it for a few months and then you take it back to the dealer for an oil change. But there's a problem. You didn't realize that the car's GPS system actually tracks where you go, and you happened to drive through a run-down part a town a few times. Well, the guy at the dealership comes out and says "You weren't supposed to drive through that side of town. When you bought this car, there was a clause that said you could only drive it on Lexus-approved roads. I'm sorry we're going to keep your keys. You can keep the car, but you cannot have the keys back and there's nothing you can do about it." So here you are with a $50,000 car and no way to use it and no recourse to fight your situation.

      That is exactly what the proprietary hardware and software do. You own the car, but the vendor owns the keys. It's not right.
      • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's not a really accurate analogy. More accurately would be if you added a turbocharger, flashed the engine management system, changed the oil to a different blend or cut out the muffler, and the engine "bricked." Any car manufacturer would go tell you to blow yourself if you tried to claim the warranty coverage.
    • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2According to the endgadget article and a lot of other accounts, many locked, unhacked iPhones have "bricked" (as in, no longer working AT ALL) after the 1.1.1 update. This isn't Apple's fault?
    • meechwings, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2WTF would someone hacking THEIR iPhone have to do with YOUR phone?

    • Theli, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"To whine like this publicly is childish and the lowest of consumerism."

      Actually, "whining" in public is the the highest form of consumerism. I'm not taking sides on the issue of hacks here, but if you think that a company has treated you unfairly, you should go public with it.
  • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -12/+38If you don't like it, stop doing the Apple Updates and rely solely on the hacking community to support you phone...you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either void your warranty and use the phone the way you want and stop complaining when Apple hasn't complied with every hack you loaded on it, or use the phone the way it was intended/programed and have nothing to complain about.
    • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Hmm, so if I were to buy a computer and installed a third party piece of software, would that void the warranty? When I had my old palm, I installed third party software on it all the time. It did not void the warranty and it did not interfere with updates.
      • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Well that would be a valid point if the Palm or your computer and the iPhone had the same warranty wouldn't it. Also, your computer, which I will assume is Windows and or OS X, has an official SDK which gives you the guidelines to develop software for the platform that will comply with the updates that are released for it.
      • haydesigner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you installed an app that hacked the Palm OS, would you expect Palm to support that app? No.
        • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Are they actually hacking the OS? Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought they were just adding third party software.
        • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Which the OS doesn't allow, ergo you have to hack it do so.
      • bradleyland, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If you buy a computer, then flash the BIOS with some third-party product, then install a vendor supplied update on top of it, rendering your computer unusable, yes, you'd be ***** outta luck.
        • Ajaxpeapod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And how often do people need to do that to just run programs not supplied by the developers of the hardware platform? Oh and how often do you need to flash your modem (baseband for the iphone) just so you can use another way to connect to the internet? ... (waits for it)... never, seet, good point "bradleyland"
    • intense321, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What about the part in the article that talks about legitimate unlocked iPhones getting bricked, in addition to the hacked ones?
      • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Prove to me that it's not just someone who won't admit to their phone being hacked before the update. Another person failing to accept responsibility for their lack of responsibility. If you can't accept that this scenario is even remotely possible then you have some serious confusion about humanity.
      • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"legitimate unlocked iPhones"

        no such thing exists, as they are all meant to be AT&T only.
  • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=36280 ...

    Wow, check out the apple apologists on that thread. It's like they need to respond at every anti-Apple comment with some excuse like "maybe they're just waiting for leopard to be released".
  • a5tr0cr3ep, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14to me it seems that apple had its niche with there loyal fans and that they were all about a quality product. while microsoft was the big evil corporation hell bent on billions of dollars. after the success of the ipod i have seen itunes go from a great product that made editing your mp3 tags very very easliy and a nice alternative to windows media player and winamp. but as time goes i see itunes using more and more system resources and being updated at a daily rate and packages quicktime...and to top it all off it puts quicktime in my start up menu every update. so now itunes takes like 30-40 seconds to come up and quicktime is trying its best to slow down my start up. it seems apple got a taste of money and they want more...everything that made them great and different from microsoft they are losing the difference i see now is packaging and marketing, business practices are identical IMHO
    • Ajaxpeapod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1On windows - Run -> MSCONFIG. Disable apple startup programs. Done. At least they didn't kill your box for adding "3rd party apps"
  • alperea, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Why does this article have such a nice and delicate tone? If this were another company, MS or otherwise, the article wouldn't sound so mediating.

    Point is, Apple blantantly and utterly screwed a lot if its customers. They know this, so why not the pitchforks?
    • deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11How did they screw their customers? They made it clear the iPhone was an AT&T exclusive without third party apps. Anyone who bought the phone to unlock and use third party apps on was fully warned ahead of time. Why buy a product that doesn't meet your needs and then act like a victim ? If you want an unlocked phone with third party apps you shouldn't own an iPhone.
    • dvandewalle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5the customers screwed themselves by installing applications they knew voided there license agreement
  • danielrh9, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38Quote of the article:

    "You can't put your Lego model in a kid's hand and throw a fit out when they make something better than you did."

    Dead. On.
    • deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Bad analogy though... Apple made it clear from day one the iPhone was AT&T exclusive with no third party apps.
      • rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Did you even read the article, from Day 1 Steve Jobs said that the iphone running OS X would allow 'Desktop Class' applications. It was only later he brought in the safari webpage thing.
        • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Nowhere in there did I hear him say, "It's ok to Hack the iPhone."
      • ascheinberg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You fail it. You totally missed the point of the analogy.
    • ascheinberg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Digg down. I replied to the wrong comment.
    • Ajaxpeapod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yea he did, he also said that if you ever tried to do anything creative with your phone he'd brick the bitch... didn't he?
    • Ajaxpeapod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yea he did, he also said that if you ever tried to do anything creative with your phone he'd brick the bitch... didn't he?
    • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The difference here is the lego bricks are superglued together, so you can't make something different out of them.
  • svenjick, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Highly interesting article but I think it's too complex. It misses the 2 real problems.
    1) the non-release of any "real" SDK for the iPhone. Apple's reasons were understandable (but lame): they launched the iPhone before it was ready, so no time to setup a real SDK, so go for the web-aps. Stupid, for what is to become Mr Everybody's next Palm.
    2) the "exclusive" deal with phone operators sucks + US only deployment. Whatever the reasons, this means that people just want to get the phone working on their own / current operator.

    > So Apple, wake up, and get this right! (oh, and by the way, everybody really wants the iPhone 2 to come out, with 3G and co. - the real thing)
    • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Engadget may pick up on every public statement that Apple have made on this and say they handled it wrong, but I don't see what they've done wrong with the announcements. Most of it was pretty obvious stuff that's common sense.

      The only thing Apple can really be criticised for with the iPhone is what they havent done. From a practical standpoint they should simply of 1) Released an SDK by now, 2) Tested updates to ensure it doesnt break the hacking community efforts.

      Really wish Apple would learn from history and stop being so restricted about everything.
      • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They can not be expected to test for every or even ANY hacked software. I do think they should release an SDK, and even then, it's the software developers that have to make sure it works with the hardware, not the other way around.
        • Ajaxpeapod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So going out of your way to kill someones development process is a much better way to handle the situation... actually taking $$$ out of someones pockets is a much better way of handling it... right?
  • Singulariter, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Come on. If Apple doesn't block third party application development on the phone, how are they supposed to market their new Newton PDA that will utilize the iPhones touch screen interface....
  • Jeez, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3OS2Guy
    So lets get this straight apple owns the iphone you buy and you cant add anything to it cause apple said so. What next will they come check our iphone periodically to make sure we don't abuse it?
    • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Just don't expect them to try and QA every hack app out there to make sure it works with their update. They have every right to assume you haven't hacked your phone and update it accordingly. You don't HAVE to run the update.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4"We've seen just as many reports of legitimate, "factory fresh" users getting bricked iPhones as those who've just added apps, SIM unlocked their devices, or done both. In fact, besides a lot of hearsay and anger from the tech community, we've seen absolutely nothing which indicates to us that Apple is targeting users who've hacked their phones and is bricking them on update. In an informal and totally unscientific poll here on Engadget, the number of iPhone users who had never hacked their device but wound up bricked was very similar to the number of users who did hack and brick their device -- and that's even with polls showing far more voting users hacked their phones than not."

    Good to keep in mind. This might just be bad testing, and not intentional at all. That doesn't change the fact that Apple needs to open up the iPhone, though.
    • OS2Guy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ummmm, no you haven't. What you've read are people "claiming" be have factory fresh iPhones. If the claim was even the slightest bit true then all of us with legitimate iPhones would have bricks. And we don't. I suppose we're the exceptions, tho' right?
      • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I bet the fault came from variations in the computer used to sync the iPhones. You're right that if it was a problem with the iPhone itself, all of them would have bricked.
    • sholt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ah, the beautiful realities of the software world.

      Also, an important point is that these failures seem to be distributed fairly normally, with no strong correlations either way, between locked and unlocked phones. Another point against Apple targeting users with hacked phones.
  • cmearns, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3amen, engadget. amen.
  • ST0N3, on 10/10/2007, -17/+27disagree 100%. You bought the phone expecting these things to happen. Shut up, enjoy your phone, and you get what you paid for. If extra apps come back, awesome, cool, good for the phone, but I had applications installed on my phone, and the more I installed the more bugs i noticed.

    I'm glad 1.1.1 came around. I'm sick of being in the apple store and hearing people complain that "ApolloIM isn't working".
    If you don't know how to use it, then don't. And don't go crawling to apple when stuff breaks.

    Whether they did it intentionally or not is another story. My belief is that something the software update addresses caused a major change in the way the iPhone worked, thereby not letting any of the previously installed apps work on it.

    DEAL WITH IT
    • alperea, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2So if MS makes IE the only browser that can be used in Windows, and locks out firefox, etc, are you gonna tell me to DEAL WITH IT?
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Windows is an Operating system meant to work with third-party programs. If they could get away with it, I'm sure they would lock out other browsers. The DOJ and Europeans are already looking for MS to do something like that so they can slam them. Apple on the other hand came out with a cell phone. They promised interactions with third-party developement exactly when?

        Having sold a million+ phones doesn't make them a market leader and they have promised nothing they haven't delivered on in regards to the iPhone (including the possibility that it could be bricked if you mess with it).

        If you don't like Apple or the iPhone, please buy something else.
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Another apple apologist. if it was MS you would be out for their blood.
  • jammach, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10Let's see. People have bought a product, running an operating system that's secure and have KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY agreed to a set of license conditions about it's use. They then knowingly and willingly hack it to run third party programs not authorised according to the license terms. Then they are warned well in advance that a software update might brick their phone and given an opportunity to reverse what they have done, before said update is released. They don't revert their product to it's bought state and it's bricked. I don't see how Apple owes you guys *anything*. Shut up, grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. I would be ashamed if people saw me being to stupid in public.
    • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I bet you buy a computer and only use the software it came with.
  • SirZRX, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3from the moment i pay 300usd for a phone is mine, releasing a firmware intended to damage my property can be subject of any lawsuit IMO.
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4At what point did Apple say that you could put on third-party programs that would be compatible with any updates? Oh, that's right, they didn't. If being locked into ATT and strictly following Apple's intended usage for this phone isn't something you can deal with, pick another phone.
      I personally don't care for the iPhone myself, and like most reasonable people made a desicion to not buy one. It really is that easy.
    • badnewsblair, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Just what we need to solve our problems; another lawsuit.
    • znicket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You still own the iPhone - its just a simple lump of hardware now with an inoperable OS - because you didn't buy the OS, it was licensed to you with some hefty restrictions. Take a look at clause 1. in your EULA.
      There is nobody stopping you from designing your own OS and installing it in your iPhone... good luck with that.

  • jim1977, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Counterpoint: the bricking was avoidable and malicious and used to scare more users from unlocking their phones. Apple earns money from both phone sales and AT&T contracts - they're willing to protect this by destroying your phone.
  • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11I don't buy it. I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that the bricking of the phones is due to some lazy ***** at Apple who didn't check his code. They are purposefully bricking phones. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise. Apple wants to control everything you do with the things you buy from them. I mean, look at the new iPods with the encryption that has disabled third-party syncing apps and third party peripherals - that right there says they don't want you to use anything else on their hardware than what they want you to use.

    I simply cannot take the optimistic apporach here to believe that this is inadvertant. Apple's track record really proves that false.
    • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Then don't buy and Apple product.
      • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is a ***** answer. You didn't even reply to what I said.
      • jim1977, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What, if like me, you bought an iPhone after Apple said they wouldn't block third party apps, only to have it blocked and the apps deleted?

        It's too late for me. But if you want an as new iPhone cheap, let me now.
        • smhill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1When did Apple say they wouldn't block third party apps? In fact they said the exact opposite.
          • jim1977, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/apple/Apple_You_have_our_blessing_ ...

            Depends what you take 'neutral stance' to mean. I wouldn't have thought a neutral stance and blocking apps were compatible, but then again, I wasn't too surprised to find this had happened.
          • Hamletlere, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do a simple google search of "Joswiak iPhone third-party", and you'll see where an Apple executive stated they are taking a neutral stance on native third-party applications. For example, http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/09/11/apple.iphon ...

            Then you might notice that Apple didn't just change the APIs, breaking existing third-party applications. Instead, they changed the firmware so it is encrypted and signed, making it FAR more difficult to hack (and so far, impossible to get third-party software onto). That's a neutral stance?
      • smhill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's not a ***** answer. It is the only answer.
        There was nothing ambiguous when the iPhone was released. No 3rd party apps, no choice of carrier. If you bought it assuming anything else you are complete idiot.

        As far as the iPods go, they have changed significantly over time in terms of capability and functions. It is expected that the format for the library would change and/or expand. The new ones give much more feedback and details.

        Any company should be able to modify their files to fit their needs. They aren't open or published specs, they haven't guaranteed or allowed compatibility, they were under no obligation to support 3rd party stuff. They didn't do it break compatibility, most likely, they just don't care. IPods are designed to work with iTunes which is free. That is the tool provided to manage your iPod. Sure you can use whatever you want, but Apple doesn't provide support.

        These are they way things are with these products are, there is no confusion on this. If you buy one and expect something different, you are an idiot.

        If you want other options or other features or whatever, BUY SOMETHING ELSE and stop whining.


  • kbro, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18I have an iPhone, and Engadget does not reflect my feelings either.

    I bought the iPhone knowing it did not have an API for native 3rd-party app development. That's OK, I am quite happy with the "applications" it came with (and will be updated with). The iPhone is a consumer appliance to me, not a computing platform.

    • znicket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Amen to that. This mass geek hysteria is completely foreign to me.
  • Hermmunster, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18Listen, the DMCA exemption permits the unlocking of cell phones. The iPhone is a cell phone. Apple knew about the exemption before the release of the cell phone. AT&T is a cell phone service provider. They knew about the exemption before the release of the cell phone.

    The DMCA exemption did not give Apple nor AT&T to right re-lock the cell phone. Nothing gives them the right to remove the explicit right that the DMCA exemption granted to consumers.

    What Apple and AT&T are doing is picking and choosing which DMCA provisions they wish to comply with. They will issue cease and desist letters (as they did not long ago), and then choose to ignore the Library Of Congress exemption that permits the legal unlocking of cell phones.

    This ultimately should result in lawsuits regarding the re-lock as well as the bricking of the phones (locked and unlocked alike).

    There are other laws that also force any "warranty" provider to honor their warranty even if a device has been modified.

    The iPhone is completely useless to anyone purchasing it unless they either unlock it or they sign up for AT&Ts 2 year contract. Keep in mind that AT&T is not top of the line when it comes to providing cell phone service.

    If Apple expects customers to comply with the rule of law then Apple certainly must comply with that as well. No one gives Apple the right to pick and choose as if the laws only apply to the poor. Apple acts like they can do what they want because they know that the population is generally poor and incapable of defending itself and the rights granted to it.

    Apple can't dishonor the warranty unless they can prove that the modification actually broke the phone. So far the indication is that the modifications have not broken the phones, in any sense of the word. As well Apple can't dishonor the DMCA Library of Congress exemption.

    Nothing Engadget writes means a thing. Period. Because when push comes to shove, the only thing that matters is the legal grounds upon which you stand. No amount of pulling the heartstrings is going to change that.

    The law applies to both the RICH and poor, Mr. Jobs
    • r00ts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As far as I know, Apple didn't force this update on anyone. It was optional. You could still have your unlocked iPhone if you didn't install the update.

      Besides, the DMCA says it's not criminal for a user to unlock their phone. It says nothing about phone companies being forced to allow this to happen, only that if someone unlocks a phone they can't get in any sort of trouble for it.

      Apple was completely in their legal bounds upon releasing this update. You knew there were risks when you MODIFIED your iPhone to run unofficial applications. So stop complaining now that those risks came true.
    • smhill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Listen, the DMCA exemption permits the unlocking of cell phones. "

      Wrong. The exemption only says you can not be sued for unlocking your phone. Nothing more nothing less. It does not give you any "rights" and does not require a company to support it or provide a way.

  • definetheline, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I expect an open letter from Steve Jobs any day now......
  • jammach, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Apple have released a firmware update adding functionality to the iPhone. They have no responsibility whatsoever to write their firmware to take into account people hacking their iPhones and installing third party applications. End of story. Are you seriously telling me that Apple's engineers should start doing compatibility testing between their own software releases and hacker's applications? Developers have the responsibility of writing applications within Apple's software guidelines for the iPhone, not the other way around. If you decide to add on a NO2 package to your car and then the engine blows up after it's first service, would you expect the Garage to honour your warrenty? Nope.
    Do I think they purposefully wrote this firmware update to brick hacked iPhones? Personally, I don't but your opinion may vary. In any case, they warned you. You had an opportunity to restore your phone. You didn't, you left it hacked, you then updated it, it bricked. Your choice.
    • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2According to reports, both hacked and unhacked phones are getting "bricked" - there's no correlation between unlocked phones and the device breaking. Occam's Razor: the 1.1.1 update has serious bugs.
  • skellener, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Just open the damn thing up already. Everybody wins...

    - Apple sells more iPhones because they can do more things
    - AT&T gets more subscribers because most people WON'T hack it to switch carriers
    - Developers make a little cash for the really, really good apps
    - Consumers are happy

    So where's the problem?
    • Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2How do you sell your argument to AT&T? "We could leave it closed, and prevent people from changing carriers, or we could open it, and most people won't change carriers." That's a net loss.
      • fr34k5h0w, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think skellener is talking about an SDK, but that second point kind of seems a little off from the rest.
  • xornor, on 10/10/2007, -13/+14"WAAAA I HAXORED MY IPHONE NOW IT DOESN'T WORK" Boo ***** hoo, what did you expect stupid idiots???
  • holdencaulfield, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Don't use "status quo" if you don't know what it means.
    • ReyX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're such an iPhoney, Holden Caulfield.
  • blacklilyninja, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2so my question is:

    Why has there been a class action suit filed against both apple and at&t for some kind of unfair business practice or dmca violation?


    • smhill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I assume you left out a "not" in there.

      Because neither has occurred. There is no DCMA violation, and "unfair" business practice isn't a legal term. You would have prove what practices they did that caused damage. Realistically they have done nothing. The phone provides all the features and functionality it advertised.
  • springo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4This is simple: when iPhone reaches my country, I won't buy after what Apple's done. And to all of those who think that Apple is making wrong moves, the most powerful complaint is boycott.
    • znicket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, to counterbalance your point - I have been watching this matter closely and I still intend to buy an iPhone at the first opportunity. I have no intention of hacking it or ***** around with it and all this geek hoopla is just weird. The phone will serve me fine as it comes out of the bos... and if some more applications come legally down the road... it will be just gravy.
    • smhill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Simple and best answer.

      I like the iPhone, but I do want the ability to have 3rd party apps, and for that to be supported and not hacked. When Apple allows for 3rd party apps and provides an SDK, I may purchase one. Til then, I'll wait.
  • alperea, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I wouldn't buy a locked Iphone for the same reason I wouldn't buy a car with the hood welded shut.
  • skilless, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I have an iPhone I've unlocked to use in Canada.

    While this article isn't perfect, I think the gist is good enough to warrant attention. I like my version 1.0.2 iPhone and will be happy using it as-is for years. If I'm lucky newer versions will be jailbroken as before but I bought the iPhone knowing I may never update it. That's fine with me.
  • manmetropolis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I believe that apple is losing touch with the consumer. I recommended the iPhone to everyone I know because it is a great device. But this update 1.1.1 bricking phones and locking 3rd party apps is a bad move. I love apple's way of thinking but this goes against all apple stands or stood for. Is it think different? or think like Apple?
    • znicket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well... I think the apple way is more "user friendly and stability above all". They didn't feel they could offer that at the moment and so didn't support 3rd party applications. They will eventually come but what is the rush?
  • mostman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20This is so humorous. "Apple is losing touch with the consumer" "Apple doesn't know what people want" "Apple will stop making money"

    Folks - you do realize that 99.5 percent of consumers that Apple is targeting with the iPhone don't give a ***** about custom applications right? They don't care that the homebrewed version of the top IRC client on the market wont work on the iPhone. They don't care about not having an SSH client. They don't care about not having a top notch RSS reader. They don't CARE.

    Some people in here need to take some Marketing 101 courses, because you are clearly naive.
    • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4More like they are so totally self centered to think that everyone who buys an iPhone cares as much about the geekery of hacking an iPhone as they do.
      • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Sure, most people don't care. But it's not a matter of people not caring, it's a matter of having the freedom to do things to the phone should you choose to do so.

        What if the government reovked the first ammendment saying that we don't need free speech because no one really has anything useful to say and it's hurtful anyway and can compromise their authority and said that they'd reinstate the amendment once we the people decided that we had something useful and helpful to say that didn't question authority or jepordize those in power? You'd find that the most abhorrent thing ever and wouldn't stand for it. So why do you stand for it on your gadgets and computers?
        • Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So why did you give 400-600 USD to a company who doesn't support that freedom, instead of to a company who does? You're part of the problem.
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I didn't, nor would or will I. I'm arguing against the apologists who thinks this kind of behavior in a company is ok and acceptable.
        • smhill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Their behavior is legal and within their rights. And since the iPhone is selling like hotcakes even with these restrictions, it is obviously acceptable to the customer base.

          Either case, comparing this to first amendment rights is such a freaking stretch it is retarded. You choose to accept their terms when you buy the damn thing. If you don't like don't buy. First amendment rights are not 'optional'.
        • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because Apple has always had this policy, it's not like they sold the phones and then all the sudden changed their mind.

          "Sure, most people don't care. But it's not a matter of people not caring, it's a matter of having the freedom to do things to the phone should you choose to do so."

          The phone does what I need it to do, so I obviously don't care and I'm ok with that.
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@smhill
          Yeah, maybe it's legal, but everything that is legal isn't necessarily right. You can't treat your customers this way and expect to be a respected company.

          And the analogy is perfectly sound. And it doesn't just apply here but in all cases where you see this kind of behavior: Microsoft saying they can lock down your OS if they don't like what you do, Apple saying you can't put the Mac OS on any machine beside an Apple machine, Apple telling you that you can't use Amarok or anything else to sync music to your iPod instead of iTunes, any time where a company says that you own the car but they own the keys. Yes, it's legal, but it's not right and shows that a company doesn't care about it's customers.
    • manmetropolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So you think you're the Digg Sanctimonious user eh? Does that include insulting others by calling them naive, what does that say of you?
  • emirhan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I understand if they say you void your warranty because you jailbreak it.
    But this is the first time I'm witnessing to an update that bricks the phone.(That you already paid $432 NY TAX). They are making $200 profit per phone and yet have the guts to brick almost half a million phones.
    Here you go apple fanboys. use your $400 brick.
  • RoflMyWaffle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4the way i see it its just like dropping a modchip in a video game console... once its in, your warranty is gone and its never going to change.
  • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3i bet you AT&T was concerned about the SIMs modding more than anything else, and probably pressured apple into the bricking of SIM mod phones. this will all end when the iphone goes to any carrier...
  • Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The only argument I hear about why Apple should allow this is that people paid a lot of money for their iPhone. At what point will people switch from "I got ripped off!" to "I personally made a poor choice spending 600 bucks on a shiny 1st gen phone!". You paid the bleeding-edge tax. The rest of us either have a phone we are happy with or 600 bucks in the bank.
  • HipOldGuy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Since all Engadget seems to do is farm stories from Gizmodo I am looking there for the original story.

    Gizmodo is becoming a joke also.

    Digg has dropped greatly also, but I am addicted, anyone have a 12 step program?
  • spacebot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1AT&T + Apple = Open iPhone :] = Not in your life!
    Asking Steve Jobs and Apple to create or allow an open iPhone is like asking a Leopard to change it's spots. It will NOT happen! They love a closed system. Apple partnered with a company who gave the NSA all their customers phone and data records??? I'm sure AT&T won't have a problem with an open, use whatever network you want, iPhone.

    Hack away brothers, All in all its just another iBrick in the wall.
  • brizznady, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I was going to buy a mac book pro when the latest os was released, but now i could care less. FU apple i wont ever recommend an apple product again.
  • neosublime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Am I the only one that see's this as "Apples First Hackers Playground"?

    1. It runs OS X Leopard
    2. It may be as popular or more than iPod
    3. You are not restricted to Windows or Mac.

    The long debate about Apples security has been, "there's not enough of them to bother hacking it." Now there's enough. Now there's an iPhone in every pocket, (future speaking), for every Hacker to want root access to. A phone/computer/password toting device that runs the same OS as your secure computer.

    The more Apple fights this, the more time people are going to find different ways to exploit it, that may soon lead to major OS X exploits. How long does this game need to go on before the next "DVD John" figures out how to compromise this device in a way that will also work on OS X?
  • Biks, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Hacked iPhone users are like Katrina victims...
    I don't live in New Orleans...yet I knew that a category 5 hurricane was bearing down on it AND the place was below sea level..I would've left town.
    I don't even own an iPhone..yet I knew that the next upgrade would've ***** with it. I wouldn't have run the hack.
    I must be clairvoyant... :-P
  • crazybugger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Micorsoft is a pig!
    Apple is no different!
  • cicovc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Fantastic!
  • demesisx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That was a great article. What I would have said if I were more articulate..and a professional writer.

    I sincerely hope Steve Jobs reads it and changes his mind...or at least fesses up to the fact that he signed a contract with AT&T to keep people from unlocking the phone. They're facing a huge backlash if they don't.
    • demesisx, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1why did I get dugg down for this? People are strange.

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 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.