You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: iphoneSimFree 1.6 Unlocks iPhone 1.1.1

News

iphoneSimFree 1.6 Unlocks iPhone 1.1.1

Building on the efforts of iPhone Dev Team's work to jailbreak the iPhone 1.1.1 software, iphoneSimFree is now offering an unlock option for updated iPhones. The unlock allows iPhone owners to use their combination iPod and smart phone outside of the AT&T cell network.

iphoneSimFree's unlock procedure is compatible with iPhone 1.1.1 and iPhone firmware version 04.01.13_G. The unlock steps will also "unbrick" iPhones that were previously rendered unusable by the 1.1.1 update.

Of course, once Apple releases the next iPhone update, unlocked phones will likely stop working again. For now, however, iPhone users that installed the 1.1.1 software update can move their handheld off of AT&T's network -- just keep in mind that Apple isn't bound to honor warranties on unlocked phones.

10 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

tuscmat said:

member since 06 May 2004 with 35 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

You mean Apple is going to lock out my phone again?!!!!! I'm suing them because they won't let me break my phone!!!!! I want them to be just like the government and take care of my every need!!! I shouldn't have to act responsibly or anything! WAAAAAH!!!!!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

iBricker 2.0

For those who like to use a hair dryer in the shower or those that like to use the toaster in the bathtub.

Is stupidity a good defense? Is that like an insanity plea?

"I know it will break my phone and it will void my warranty but judge I just had to be able to play an NES emulator on my iPhone. I bought it. It's my right!"

[groan] As if people didn't learn from the last batch of "hacks and exploits".

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

This is nothing but a plot by slimy attorneys to recruit new clients for their class(less) action suits against Apple. Don't give into temptation even if Ted Landau says it's ok.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

To all you Steve Job's bitches out there:

Apple could have simply prevented the update from installing on the hacked phones instead of allowing the update to install only to have the phone bricked. Customers have the legal right to modify thier phones to work on other networks. This is a mis-step on Apple's part. It's too bad you can't see that because you are too busy Sucking SJ's c*ck.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Actually, when Leopard comes out all your iPhone worries will be over. The reason we can't write software yet is because there's a new system in town and Sheriff SJ doesn't want to have to re-write for a new OS!! Once Leopard is out all bets are off and the Software community will be pleased.

As far as your legal right to modify your phone... correct modify it to death I say.. but don't bring it back for help when ya kill it!!

and c'mon why say that about SJ's c*ck... you probably want him don't you... Are You Steve Ballmer???????????

Guest wrote:
To all you Steve Job's bitches out there:

Apple could have simply prevented the update from installing on the hacked phones instead of allowing the update to install only to have the phone bricked. Customers have the legal right to modify thier phones to work on other networks. This is a mis-step on Apple's part. It's too bad you can't see that because you are too busy Sucking SJ's c*ck.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Anonymous wrote:
To all you Steve Job's bitches out there:

Apple could have simply prevented the update from installing on the hacked phones instead of allowing the update to install only to have the phone bricked. Customers have the legal right to modify thier phones to work on other networks.

First, invest in a spell checker, especially one that cuts out inanities and gratuitous obscenities.

Second, while the consumer has the right to "crack" the code on a phone for the SOLE purpose of connecting to a wireless network, the manufacturer does not have the obligation to provide a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it. If you believe that the exception to the DMCA does imply such an obligation, could you please provide a legal argument, with proper citations, to that effect?

Quote this post ↓

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 344 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

gslusher wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
To all you Steve Job's bitches out there:

Apple could have simply prevented the update from installing on the hacked phones instead of allowing the update to install only to have the phone bricked. Customers have the legal right to modify thier phones to work on other networks.

First, invest in a spell checker, especially one that cuts out inanities and gratuitous obscenities.

Second, while the consumer has the right to "crack" the code on a phone for the SOLE purpose of connecting to a wireless network, the manufacturer does not have the obligation to provide a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it. If you believe that the exception to the DMCA does imply such an obligation, could you please provide a legal argument, with proper citations, to that effect?

Ya know, Apple may not currently be obligated to provide a way themselves of unlocking the iPhone from AT&T service, and may be able to prove their case that they are not legally obligated to honor warranties on iPhones that have had their software altered in ways not authorized by them. However, I find it extremely alarming that the iPhones that have been bricked by Apple's update are not irrevocably damaged. The claim by Apple that unlocking your iPhone does irrepairable damage has now been shown to be false, and that the update is a malicious attack against their userbase who are unwilling to be locked into a single carrier. What is so wrong with wanting the right to choose your carrier when you purchase the phone you want.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

daemon wrote:

Ya know, Apple may not currently be obligated to provide a way themselves of unlocking the iPhone from AT&T service, and may be able to prove their case that they are not legally obligated to honor warranties on iPhones that have had their software altered in ways not authorized by them. However, I find it extremely alarming that the iPhones that have been bricked by Apple's update are not irrevocably damaged. The claim by Apple that unlocking your iPhone does irrepairable damage has now been shown to be false, and that the update is a malicious attack against their userbase who are unwilling to be locked into a single carrier. What is so wrong with wanting the right to choose your carrier when you purchase the phone you want.

Why are you alarmed that the iPhones are NOT irrevocably damaged? Can you show me where Apple used the word "irrevocable" in describing what might happen? (Apple never said that unlocked iPhones would be damaged. (See below.)

From Apple's warranty for the iPhone:

Quote:
This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products; (b) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (c) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple; (d) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple; (f ) to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (g) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; or (h) if any Apple serial number has been removed or defaced.

(Emphasis added.)

Here's what the update told the user, as reported in ComputerWorld:

Quote:
"Warning: Apple has discovered that some of the unauthorized unlocking programs available on the Internet may cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software," the message read. "If you have modified your iPhone's software, applying this software update may result in your iPhone becoming permanently inoperable."

Notice the word may. IOW, they couldn't be sure just what would happen, as they couldn't test against all the hacks and all the other possible configurations. They couldn't guarantee that an unlocked iPhone would work and knew that one might cease to operate. It was a warning, not a promise nor a threat. No one held a gun to any iPhone owner's head and forced her/him to apply the update. Anyone who saw that warning and went ahead has no excuse and no one to blame but herself/himself.

I lived in the Phoenix, AZ, area for a while. Flash floods there can happen very suddenly. Quite a few roads go through a "dry" stream bed, rather than over a bridge. There are signs that tell drivers to not attempt to cross if the road is under water. Still, some do and find their cars floating downstream (the water can flow at 20-30 mph). Some people are injured or killed in cars or when they enter the stream on foot. Those people can blame only their own stupidity. Anyone who applied the update to an unlocked iPhone was equally stupid.

You should read some of the more astute technical articles about the update, especially the blog by Rainer Brockerhoff. The "update" is essentially a total rewrite of the firmware (which includes the OS). In order to put it in place, the designers have to know what the configuration/state of each of the three CPUs in the iPhone is. The unlocking hacks change the configuration/state in various ways--not all are the same, so the results can be unpredictable.

Others have written that this was most likely not a "malicious attack." (Can you PROVE that it was malicious?)

You may certainly want to change carriers, but Apple doesn't have to facilitate it. (You do understand that the only other nationwide carrier that you could use is T-Mobile, don't you? No amount of hacking or unlocking will get the iPhone to work on Sprint or Verizon.) If you want to use T-Mobile, get an iPhone and unlock it. Just don't expect Apple to support it and be careful of system updates.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

gslusher wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
To all you Steve Job's bitches out there:

Apple could have simply prevented the update from installing on the hacked phones instead of allowing the update to install only to have the phone bricked. Customers have the legal right to modify thier phones to work on other networks.

Second, while the consumer has the right to "crack" the code on a phone for the SOLE purpose of connecting to a wireless network, the manufacturer does not have the obligation to provide a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it. If you believe that the exception to the DMCA does imply such an obligation, could you please provide a legal argument, with proper citations, to that effect?

You missed the point enitrely. When Apple switched to Intel, it originally said it would not oppose anyone trying to run Windows on their Macs, but they said they wouldn't provide any support for people who tried to do so. Apple could have easily taken this approach instead of actively bricking people's phones. They could have easily PREVENTED the updates from intalling in hacked phones. How do you possibly construe this as providing "a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it?"

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Anonymous wrote:
gslusher wrote:

Second, while the consumer has the right to "crack" the code on a phone for the SOLE purpose of connecting to a wireless network, the manufacturer does not have the obligation to provide a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it. If you believe that the exception to the DMCA does imply such an obligation, could you please provide a legal argument, with proper citations, to that effect?

You missed the point enitrely. When Apple switched to Intel, it originally said it would not oppose anyone trying to run Windows on their Macs, but they said they wouldn't provide any support for people who tried to do so. Apple could have easily taken this approach instead of actively bricking people's phones. They could have easily PREVENTED the updates from intalling in hacked phones. How do you possibly construe this as providing "a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it?"

First, get a spell checker.

Second, talk about missing a point. You completely flipped the last sentence. I said that Apple does NOT have to provide a method to facilitate users unlocking their iPhones. Indeed, the law does not require that Apple not do anything to prevent unlocking--it allows Apple to take measures to prevent unlocking or make it difficult. All the exception to the DMCA says is that the user cannot be sued nor prosecuted for breaking software to unlock a cell phone for the sole purpose of connecting to a wireless network. (Notice that SELLING an unlocked iPhone or even the software or techniques to accomplish the unlocking, may not be covered by the exception, according to several articles by attorneys that I've read.)

Third, Apple gave the user the opportunity to not attempt to install the update. No one was forced to install it; it was not done automatically (as, say, a recent MS update to Vista and XP was). That should be sufficient, unless you think that iPhone owners have the intellectual development of 4-year-olds.

Last, you should read up on the update. It was apparently a nearly complete rewrite of the firmware. The iPhone has three CPUs, each with its own boot ROM (firmware)--including the entire OS, plus flash memory and the SIM card. In order to write the update, the software engineers have to know the configuration from which they are starting. Given the variety and often very invasive nature of the unlocking hacks, there is no way that they could account for every situation.

I've noted that many blogs and forums (including this one) apparently are frequented not just by attorneys, but attorneys who specialize in intellectual property law. They must be attorneys, since they make definitive statements about what is "legal" and "not legal," without qualification. Of course, they may be sloppy attorneys, as they don't back up their definitive statements with legal argument or references, something attorneys apparently learn to do in their first semester of law school (based on the half-dozen law students at the University of Oregon I've worked with).

Do read Rainer Brockerhoff's blog article (linked above) and the article in Wired by Leander Kahney.

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.