News

Apple Says Many Unlocking Programs Damage iPhone

Monday, September 24th, 2007 at 5:10 PM - by

Apple released a statement today saying that "many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable..."

The statement by Apple was placed on PR Newswire at 14:40 Denver time.

The complete statement was as follows: "Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week....

"Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty."

24 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:25 pm

Do they have any specific examples or is this just fear tactics?

Quote this post ↓

vasic said:

member since 09 Aug 2005 with 255 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:36 pm

More like legal speak for denying warranty coverage for the modded phones, which only makes sense. The iPhone is as much a software product (actually, more so) than a hardware product, so any changes are no doubt going to void the warranty.

Quote this post ↓

Sir Harry Flashman said:

member since 08 Feb 2007 with 721 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:42 pm

Anonymous wrote:
Do they have any specific examples or is this just fear tactics?

It could be both.

Somebody who knows what they are doing could conceivably unlock the iPhone and not not damage the software. In that case it may be a scare tactic.

I would think that Apple will be checking for certain code when updating the iPhone software. They could at that point you could get an error message saying the phone could not be updated or is damaged.

What is an iPhone owner's legal standing? I thought that as of 1 July 2007 a user can unlock a cell phone.

No matter what, it will only be few minutes before the Apple Slamboys and Whineboys start screeching about this warning.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:39 pm

Assuming you don't hose the iPhone so bad that it becomes unresponsive to a "Software Restore" command from iTunes, I can't understand how this claim makes any sense. (But maybe I'll still wait until the software release "in the coming weeks" before adding 3rd party apps to my phone-- hey, there's always the chance Apple will do a better version of one of the add-ons, right?)

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:56 pm

I believe the unlocking apps in question are the ones that write to the baseband and allow the iPhone to be used on other carriers. It is my guess that a software restore of the iPhone does not restore the baseband and that the upcoming iPhone update relies on something in the baseband.

We'll find out soon enough, but my guess is that the 3rd party apps and ringtone hacks won't cause any significant problems. That said, it is likely that all 3rd party apps will be erased with the update.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 999 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:30 pm

Apple should not have released the iPhone without testing 3rd party unlocking programs first. This is yet another case of Apple not working with its 3rd party developers to ensure that systems work correctly. It's the same with Intel Macs. Customers can't run Mac OS 9 apps on Intel Macs because Apple did not give 3rd party developers enough information so their Mac OS 9 apps could continue to run on Intel Macs. And don't even get me started on apps that pre-date 32-bit clean ROMs.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:32 pm

Apple could make their 'restore' process completely restore all the software on the iPhone. Or it could just restore part of the software, and if that relies on other non-updated software to be exactly original, that could brick the iPhone. Or, Apple could specifically check for the most popular hacks, and intentionally brick the iPhone if it find's one of them.

Quote this post ↓

Lavode said:

member since 03 Dec 2001 with 145 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:11 pm

Hate to be the cynical one here, but this sounds like, "we are looking at how the 3rd party software works, and we are going to change the iPhone's OS in future updates so it won't work if those hacks are installed."

Quote this post ↓

primeprgm said:

member since 11 Apr 2007 with 8 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:00 pm

I can confirm a case where an unlocked iPhone did become inoperable. It was unlocked, then a couple days later it died. However, earlier that day it had been placed on an iPod speaker dock and later in the day a Linux kernel module was installed on a computer to interface with the iPhone. I doubt the interfacing from Linux was the problem, but connecting it to the iPod dock could have been, since it made the unit hot. Still, it could also have been the unlocking software. Apple hopefully will send a replacement unit, as they are unable to repair it. (The unit in question belongs to a coworker of mine.)

In any case, this is a chilling development if they put 3rd party unlocking in their cross hairs. Be it known that I will never buy an iPhone if I can't do whatever I want on it. Either you have a phone or you have a mini-computer. If it is a mini-computer, then I should be able to make it compute whatever I want. If it is a phone, then my cheap LG non-smart-phone works very well and I'll just keep using that. (I'm already on AT&T, so that wouldn't be a problem. But I agree with another coworker that I ought to be able to have an SSH client and a PDF reader, etc.)

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:42 am

I don't think some people were paying attention. Apple disclosed, prior to the release of the iPhone, that it was going to be a closed environment.

Why on earth "should" they have tested the unit with applications clearly intended to crash the fence they erected? And yes, it was INTENDED to be a "chilling development" to 3rd party unlockers. If the product as shipped isn't your cup of tea, you have two choices:

1. Don't buy it.

2. Buy it and mod it at your own risk.

(Note: "Complain when your mod breaks your phone or voids your warranty" is not part of choice #2.)

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:42 am

I think some people weren't paying attention. Apple disclosed, prior to the release of the iPhone, that it was going to be a closed environment.

Why on earth "should" they have tested the unit with applications clearly intended to crash the fence they erected? And yes, it was INTENDED to be a "chilling development" to 3rd party unlockers. If the product as shipped isn't your cup of tea, you have two choices:

1. Don't buy it.

2. Buy it and mod it at your own risk.

(Note: "Complain when your mod breaks your phone or voids your warranty" is not part of choice #2.)

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:39 am

Speaking as one who has hacked (flashed with nonstandard software) many video cards is is not unheard of to get the card into a state where it can't be re-flashed (dead, dead, dead) short of taking the eprom out. While I am willing to play with getting a $100 video card into a zombie I don't think I would do it with a $400 phone. If the phone (via some combination of hacks and some future update) gets into a state where it can't successfully overwrite it's own instruction set you have (effectively) created an iBrick®

Video card flashers know and accept this risk. You are flashing with modified or 3rd party software/hacks, your hardware may become permanently disabled. You can hardly expect the manufacturer to service or respect (with future s/w updates) those modifications.

I think Apples stand (we aren't specifically disabling hacks or hacked phones, but won't necessarily be held to servicing them either) is truthful and legitimate.

Quote this post ↓

DaiMac said:

member since 29 Jun 2001 with 952 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:48 am

Bosco wrote:
And don't even get me started on apps that pre-date 32-bit clean ROMs.

Maybe I'm tripping (have G3 and older macs myself, so I haven't used it in years) but can't you run the vast majority (not all, I understand) of System 7.x software using vMac/SoftMac/etc on a Mac or PC? Its not an ideal solution, but I've used it in the past, as in pre-XP, and it worked for all but a couple of apps. I'm sure it depends in part to what extent the classic application followed Apple's dev guidelines, and to what extent they wrote code reliant on hardware functions that aren't emulated well/correctly.

Anyway, point being that Apple could have made it alot easier, most consumers aren't going to be able to follow through on setting up an emulator on their new Mac, especially if it ends up being an emulator-within-virtualized/BootCamp Windows.

As to this, I suspect its _possible_ to brick your iPhone through inept hacking, so this seems like preemptive ass-covering on Apple's part, probably a good idea all things considered.

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 377 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:52 am

Why not? It worked for all the whiners who bought their iPhone at the original price. They all got a discount.

Guest wrote:
(Note: "Complain when your mod breaks your phone or voids your warranty" is not part of choice #2.)

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:07 am

I'm reminded of the sign at the entrance of the china shop: "You break it, You bought it!"

Or perhaps more accurately: "You bought it. You broke it. You idiot."

Terrin wrote:
Why not? It worked for all the whiners who bought their iPhone at the original price. They all got a discount.

Guest wrote:
(Note: "Complain when your mod breaks your phone or voids your warranty" is not part of choice #2.)

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 971 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:37 am

WTF?

"Apple should not have released the iPhone without testing 3rd party unlocking programs first. This is yet another case of Apple not working with its 3rd party developers to ensure that systems work correctly."

Apple strictly said from day 1 that they were ONLY going to allow development using their development kit. Apple did work with those that are authorized 3rd party developers. This is about people who HACK their phone and modify it using unlicensed and unsupported techniques, therefore voiding their warranties, and apparently damaging their phones. I just can't understand anyone who is willing to spend $600 on a phone, sign a service agreement, and then run right out and violate it and the phone therefore making it useless. Nor do I have sympathy for them either. Then again, I hold people responsible for their own decisions and that's something completely foreign these days apparently.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 999 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:59 am

Guys, I was kidding. I thought about throwing in something Applesoft BASIC not running Integer BASIC programs, but thought that might have been a little too obvious. Geez.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:13 pm

lol

a bit red in the face now

Bosco wrote:
Guys, I was kidding. I thought about throwing in something Applesoft BASIC not running Integer BASIC programs, but thought that might have been a little too obvious. Geez.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:58 pm

Guest wrote:
Apple could make their 'restore' process completely restore all the software on the iPhone. Or it could just restore part of the software, and if that relies on other non-updated software to be exactly original, that could brick the iPhone. Or, Apple could specifically check for the most popular hacks, and intentionally brick the iPhone if it find's one of them.

Any intentional bricking of an iPhone would bring serious problems to Apple.

Quote this post ↓

chicknfood said:

member since 13 May 2004 with 15 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:24 pm

can't you just restore the software on your iPhone prior to the update? at least until a new unlocking mechanism is discovered.

Quote this post ↓

DaiMac said:

member since 29 Jun 2001 with 952 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:30 am

Bosco wrote:
Guys, I was kidding. I thought about throwing in something Applesoft BASIC not running Integer BASIC programs, but thought that might have been a little too obvious. Geez.

Heh, I got your joke, I mostly mentioned the emulation thing in case people took your comment seriously and thought there was really no way to run these old apps. All kidding aside, I've worked with more than a few clients in the last few years that had at least some reliance on pre-OS 8 software for working with their legacy documents, so it is still a relevant issue to those few.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:12 am

no matter how much apple rips its a** apart and tries to stop the iphone hacking coders will still get there way i hate apple GO Microsoft

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:14 am

yaaa go microsoft

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3012 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:35 am

Anonymous wrote:
yaaa go microsoft

Responding to your own post. How pathetic.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.