Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:41 am

I agree. It's a shame when the company that said "Rip. Mix. Burn" now says "not without my permission."

Disband the RIAA and MPAA.

Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:45 am

Burrito, you don't need to apologize. These Waaambulance chasers do. They're the same ones who think theft is ok. Stealing is de riguer, and I dare one of them to hack into their television, VCR, or microwave and think they haven't voided their warranty.

The iPhone is a phone. An appliance. Period. First and foremost, it is a phone and if you don't like it the way it is, DON"T BUY IT!

Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:13 am

I am mixed about the brickage. I don't like the bad PR Apple is getting out of this and the $200 pricegate scandal. I wish Apple had been more forthright from the beginning, before the first iPhone sale, and prominently in the packaging saying something like this

The iPhone is sold as is and is currently intended to be used on the AT&T network.

If you modify the hardware, firmware, or software you do so at your own risk.

Apple is under no obligation to support unauthorized modifications which may render

iPhone inoperable when software updates are issued.

Or words to that effect.

Ted, what 3rd party apps did you install on your iPhone?

One other question. Does anyone have a good idea of how many phones were bricked? I am speculating that it really wasn't all that big of a percentage.

Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:30 am

Burrito, Tiger & Guest - Did you even read the article? Ted - and I think every poster here - agrees that bricking phones unlocked for use on another network is within Apple's rights. A bit harsh maybe, but within their rights. Noone was complaining about Apple doing this.

Double-charging for ringtones and disallowing third-party apps is also clearly within Apple's rights. Again, noone's arguing that. But I think we're pointing out that it's a ridiculously stupid business move. I think this is one of the fundamental problems with Americans since about the 80s or so - there seems to be this idea that just because you *can* do something, you *should* do it. The simple fact that something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. You are still expected (whether you realize it or not) to exercise intelligence, make decisions, and choose a particular path. Not abdicate all your choices in life to what's legal or not.

My concern - as an Apple stockholder - is that Apple is making some pretty stupid decisions that will pay off in the short-term at the expense of long-term growth and sustainability. Anyone who's been in the stock market for longer than 2 years has already figured out that 1) focusing on the short-term at the expense of long-term growth is a strategy for failure, and 2) Companies never learn form other's mistakes and continue to do it. So you look for warning signs and sell off before the impact of the decisions takes hold and the stock starts sliding, maximizing your return.

My only question is - is Apple currently at this point? I think the release of Leopard and the inclusion or lack of an SDK for the iPhone is a strong indication whether Apple will pursue a popular open strategy that is proven to work (look how many people *still* develop for the long-cancelled Newton), or instead choose a closed strategy that is unproven and prone to failure, as evidenced by Apple's own failures early in the Mac's history, when Jobs first attempted to create an "appliance computer".

Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:22 am

i tend to think that you're paranoid if you think the 3rd party app situation is gonna drastically effect the stock price. hacking the iphone only appeals to a niche market, as most people don't even wanna risk screwing up their phones. between leopard, the new ipod lineup, the current mac lineup, and the iphone's $399 price tag, apple is positioned for quite possibly the best holiday quarter in the company's history. there's an insane amount of interest in the macintosh platform at the moment, which is only intensified by microsoft's failure with vista, so i think your portfolio is fine. they may have dropped the word "computer" from their name, but apple's primary business is still the macintosh, and that's what's gonna earn the coin in the long term.

the other thing to consider is that apple may very well develop their own iphone sdk, you just don't know. hacking a device and making it do something it wasn't designed to do is risky no matter how you look at it, and i think apple is just trying to protect their product from half-assed tinkering that could potentially cause harm to the iphone and its reputation. simply banning all hacks saves them from having to diagnose problems on thousands of uniquely configured and hacked phones.

Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:21 pm

	Bosco wrote:
	How about a class action suit against Ted Landau and TMO for telling us it was OK to brick our iPhones? Anyone else interested? We can coordinate it here, in this forum. We'd get bonus irony points for the effort.

Best idea I've heard in a while Bosco.

Seriously, the frakking thing has been out for 3 months. This incredibly vocal retarded minority that thinks that they should be able to do whatever they want with anything they buy with no consequences needs to collectively shove it. Too much time on people's hands. Try hacking your DVR and see if the cable company is happy about it.

Whether they were bricked intentionally or not is irrelevant. It's a new platform that is very important to Apple and if the feel the need either because of their own direction or because of their contractual agreements with AT&T to protect it, so be it. They have never made any secret of this so if you bought one and then hacked it, too bad. You break it, you buy it.

Just because it's Apple everyone thinks these are totally unique situations. They are not. If you want a phone to hack there are linux based ones out there. Stop being babies and go use one. Otherwise stop your crying and go do something actually productive. Sheesh.

Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:58 pm

From the article:

"First, there is a ton of freeware and shareware for the Mac, and Apple doesn't seem to worry about how all of this "degrades" the user experience. Why should the iPhone be so different?"

Just ask anyone whose Treo has crashed because of a bug in a third-party application. My Palm TX, which uses the same OS as some of the Treos, was crashed repeatedly by a third-party application. The developer chose not to respond to emails, yet continued to sell the application on several Palm-centric web sites. If the TX had been a Treo, it would have been inoperable as a phone because of those crashes until I could get back to my iMac to reload the software, as it crashed every time the TX started. If this had happened with the iPhone, you can just guess whom the users would have blamed. If you guessed anyone other than Apple, read the article, again, and see just whom even a normally clear-thinking person like Ted is blaming.

As for charging for ringtones, there are many phones in use that do NOT allow the user to load his/her own ringtones free. To put a custom ringtone on my Verizon Samsung phone, I have to buy it with the phone--and the time spent doing that counts against my "any time" minutes, regardless of when I do it. (Even just reviewing what ringtones are available eats up those minutes.)

Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:07 pm

Thanks for all the comments. Given that my columns are typically opinion pieces, I am well aware that there will be those who have a different opinion. I welcome the dialogue, even if I could do without those that combine their criticism with personal insults and invective language.

A couple of specfic replies:

• To those who feel "If you don't like the iPhone the way it is, don't buy it":

This is the equivalent of saying to those who criticize U.S. policy: "Love it or leave it." Just because I choose to remain in the United States does not mean I forfeit any right to criticize the country. The same is true for the iPhone. Just because I choose to use an iPhone does not mean I cannot justifiably criticize Apple's decisions about it.

• Similarly, to those who point out that the EULA specifically states what is or is not permitted— and if I didn't like it, I should not have agreed to it:

The EULA is not some magical shield that protects Apple from any and all criticism. It may offer them legal protection. But, if you read my article, you'll see that I am not even hinting that what Apple has done is illegal. Still, I can be dismayed by what Apple asserts in the EULA. I can be disappointed by the consequences of their actions. I can assert that, in my view, their decisions are wrong.

Finally, I would re-emphasize that I am largely supportive of Apple in the area of unlocking iPhones. It should have been clear that Apple was not going to stand idly by for this. And people who chose to do so were clearly taking a risk. Still, I don't believe Apple's best response was to destory such iPhones. If they could have simply prevented the unlock from working, that would have been far better. But I am in basic agreement with them.

My main point was -- and remains -- that preventing third-party software from working on the iPhone was the real loss here. Whether or not Apple has a right to do this is irrelevant. It is still a loss. I am confident that anyone who has actually used some of the software that was out there will agree.

Many people will have no interest in hacking the iPhone. I understand. Heck, there are many people who use a Mac for nothing more than email and Web browsing. That doesn't mean that shutting the door on other possibilities is desirable.

- Ted

Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:25 pm

i did read your article and understand it. i read your newest post and understand it. i still think you're paranoid. apple maintaining a closed environment is nothing new, just read about the development of the original macintosh. it's worked for them before, and it will continue to work for them. the stability that comes with maintaining control over the entire user experience is one of the things that makes apple different than microsoft. if you want a hackers playground, go somewhere else. that's why the good lords created linux. if you're speaking phones, then nokia has a lovely new one for you.

Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 pm

Where did you people learn to be such whores to authority, especially a damned computer maker?

"Apple says no, that's the end of the discussion!"

Bullshit.

I believe Apple should look out for its interests, vis a vis users getting around the AT&T partnership. But not to the extent of bricking the damn thing.

As for third-party apps, once you buy the iPhone, the hardware is yours. Apple can announce it realizes many people will hack their iPhones; fine, do so at your own risk. Apple will make no guarantees, nor will they try to stop you.

Advances come when people defy common knowledge, not when they kiss the asses of those spouting it.

Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:19 pm

bb-15 wrote:

I agreed with Ted's column in September. A co-worker was thinking about hacking his iphone and we talked about it. When I first read that Apple would not support hacked iphones, this made sense. But I did not think that Apple would brick hacked iphones ON PURPOSE. Well, we now know the truth. And some of us who thought Apple would be less aggressive are eating crow on other tech websites. My co-worker waited on hacking his iphone, so he is ok. But this story gives me a new view of Apple. I know now that they might go after more adventurous users. BB

Your evidence that Apple "bricked" iPhones on purpose is just what? Do you have some inside information that says that this was intentional and not just a side effect of the combination of the firmware hacks done by the unlockers and the firmware update?

Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:57 am

	Quote:
	gslusher wrote: Your evidence that Apple "bricked" iPhones on purpose is just what?

Ted's article which said;

Quote:

When you select to install the update, a window appears that contains the following warning: "If you have modified your iPhone’s software, applying this software update may result in your iPhone becoming permanently inoperable." Whoa! How does this translate into reality? In the worst case scenario, it means exactly what it says. Based on reports from the Web (such as at iPhone Central), the worst case scenario is a distinct possibility. However, it seems mainly reserved for people who have "unlocked" their iPhone. In such cases, you will need, at a minimum, a new SIM card for your iPhone. With luck, the card plus a restore of your iPhone software will get things working again. However, in some cases, even this does not succeed. What then? Do you simply throw your iPhone in the trash? As I am writing this, the answer is still not clear... ...it (Apple) has released an update that potentially permanently disables your iPhone when you attempt to install it, with no advice on how to prevent or fix this. This has to be some kind of first: an officially supported update whose major consequence may be that it destroys the very device it is supposed to update.

This indicates to me that this update was more than just about adding functionality to the iphone in which conflicts with a hack was an accident. I think that is what Ted was indicating.

I might be wrong in my conclusions. Maybe Apple had no intention of disabling any hacks (and so disabling a hacked iphone) and all of this problem with bricked iphones was accidental. But maybe it wasn't.

imho at least, BB

Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:05 pm

	gslusher wrote:
	Your evidence that Apple "bricked" iPhones on purpose is just what? Do you have some inside information that says that this was intentional and not just a side effect of the combination of the firmware hacks done by the unlockers and the firmware update?

Some support for a contention that the "bricking" may not have been from malicious intent. I doubt that many people here really understand how the iPhone works--I sure don't. It may be sufficiently complex, as Rainer Brockerhoff wrote in his blog, that screwing around with the firmware in some unforeseen way would muck it up enough that the update would fail.

A (rhetorical) question: how many here have modified the firmware on their Macs, other than by applying an Apple updater? If you did, would you expect Apple to fix it for you, free?

Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:38 pm

burreyeann wrote:

gslusher wrote: Quote: A (rhetorical) question: how many here have modified the firmware on their Macs, other than by applying an Apple updater? If you did, would you expect Apple to fix it for you, free? But we are talking about a phone here - not a computer. When you get down to it - no matter what other capabilities it has - the iPhone is, as it's name implies, a cell phone. If I legally unlock my iPhone, and an Apple update "bricks" it, then I say Apple should be held responsible for fixing it.

Show me where it says in law that Apple should be responsible for fixing the iPhone, especially as modifying the phone is apparently an explicit violation of the user agreement and warranty conditions and the user was warned that a modified phone might not work after the update.

Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:20 pm

I read an article on Wired By Leander Kahney, "Apple's Not 'Bricking' Hacked IPhones for Revenge"

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2007/10/cultofmac_1003

The basic story is that the first iphone OS was partly unfinished and needed a major upgrade. Because of this OS instability it was impossible for Apple to keep third party hacks working with the new upgrade.

I feel better about Apple's intentions after reading this. Basically, it's going to take time for the iphone to be a stable platform for additional apps. The message is; we need to be patient and I feel better about Apple's intentions.

imho at least, BB