Re: Brick Iphones
 

We all hack the crap out of our Nokia's and Nokia is all for it. They even designed the flashing around this concept and have delicious backups allowed. It's impossible to truly brick an n800 without throwing it I suppose and nokia goes into the market with the mindset that people will tinker with their toys. Imagine if IBM or DELL screwed over your laptop because you installed one OS over another.

There are a lot of ways to argue this, but the bottom line is apple needs to be more aware of their market...period. If you've got 10% of your customer base downloading and installing (stat pulled from article on first page) third party apps, that's a HUGE share in any mindset when talking about the overall reaching scope of friends and family who will now be turned off from Apple in the future.
You guys can sit by and smugly clap your hands that apple "got back" at the "hackers" but a majority are just average schmoes looking to improve something they own. Any market where upgrading software or hardware is done should be done on a complete overhaul level so destruction of now private property does not occur.

(This post written entirely on n800 with virtual keyboard... whew!)

Re: Brick Iphones
 

OK I was the one who started this thread. Maybe I should have put it under "OFF TOPIC". Hope you don't ban me from posting. :D

Re: Brick Iphones
 

I'm not being smug, but I don't feel terribly sorry for iPhone owners if they hack their devices only to find their devices "incompatible" with future firmware updates. Whenever I've "hacked" a device (eg. a network router) it's usually because I've decided to install unofficial/after market firmware, at which point I no longer expect to be able to use official manufacturer firmware updates. Apple iPhone owners are in the same boat - only there is no alternative firmware, so what are they expecting? Cake and eat it? Apple Computer says "no"...

Re: Brick Iphones
 

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/29/i...ions-released/

To use weblog ****** lingo... "iPhones are now unbrickable."

Even though they were NEVER bricked in the first place. We're 4 pages in, and people still think they are being "bricked".

Look how ignorant their posts are :(

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/breaking/...emo-305230.php

Seriously, do they do any research? Or understand what's going on? I should get into one of these blogs, at least I'd research the articles I write.

They make posts, just to be 3 minutes ahead of the other and its filled with misinformation, so they do "UPDATES".

Re: Brick Iphones
 

Bricked or locked, it's all the same to me - why bother trying to be accurate when we are calling iPhone owners "hackers"? Script kiddies would be more accurate. :)

Re: Brick Iphones
 

Ummmm no.
If you changed config files and flashed the device all those changes would have been wiped. Furthermore, the n800 was sold as something to install stuff on. The iPhone was not.

Re: Brick Iphones
 

Hence my backup capabilities comment.

Re: Brick Iphones
 

Apple supplied a device that wasn't supposed to be changed or modified by the owner - why should Apple now be held responsible if new firmware fails to work correctly with a modified iPhone? Should Apple be expected to test their future firmware with every unauthorised hack available on the internet?

Apple have made the situation pretty clear, it's up to the iPhone owners if they want to accept the consequences. iPhone owners are certainly not breaking any laws by "hacking" their iPhones and I'm glad to see it happening, but blaming Apple for not supporting iPhones with unauthorised software modifications is crazy.

:)

Re: Brick Iphones
 

It's all about "intent". Obviously modifying the baseband chip firmware in the new 1.1.1 update was NOT "necessary" and Apple only did it to re-lock all those unlocked phones. Thus that intent is considered "malicious" and a pretty good civil class-action can be made about it since the DMCA specifically exempts anyone from being sued by a cell phone company for "unlocking" their own phone. IN a class action suit Apple would have to provide PROOF that there was a specific bug in the baseband firmware that was bad enough to necessitate such a forced change.
If Apple cannot provide proof then the court system will interpret that as malicious intent and an actual violation of the current DMCA exemption and a curtailing of consumer rights. That could set one hell of a precedent and you can be damn sure that every single cell phone provider and manufacturer on the planet would be watching such a case very closely.
Again, Apple doesn't have to support any user-made modifications to the iPhone but they also CANNOT maliciously "brick" users' modified phones just to drag them back to AT&T or to force them to buy another iPhone.
Magnussen-Moss is being touted as having something to do with this even though that act was originally created to deal with the automotive sales market.
Again, it all goes back to this ONE question:
"What was Apple's purpose in having their update reflash the baseband chip?"
If they cannot come up with a good enough reason then Apple is legally sunk as far as the iPhone is concerned.

However, current US law does NOT specifically state that cell phone providers MUST allow the cell phone purchasers to be able to unlock their phones for use on different networks. There is legislation currently being drawn up to address the issue, but it's not been sent down to the floor for a vote, if it ever makes it out of committee. But current US law DOES allow for user's to unlock their own phones themselves without fear of reprisal from the phone manufacturer or cell service provider. Again, this current update could be interpreted as a malicious reprisal by Apple towards those who unlocked their phones to run on GSM networks other than AT&T-owned and operated networks.

I care not one way or the other really since I don't own one of those crippled-from-the-start iPhones but when one looks at the whole situation from a legal standpoint, Apple could be in big trouble if the can't answer the baseband chip reprogramming issue.
Of course, Apple could just come back and say that it was needed in order for the phone to support more GSM networks world-wide, but that's shaky ground and actual code would need to be reviewed by a court-appointed neutral third-party or special master to verify that claim.

Re: Brick Iphones
 

I'm enjoying my stock 1.1.1 phone. Silly T-Mobile whiners.

If you're unlocking a phone, you should expect zero updates. Whats the problem? Don't buy it and use some other unlocked phone. Maybe they can buy an N800 :)