Apple finally weighs in on iPhone hacks, unlocking
Merely three days after hearing of one user's run-in with Apple over his unlocked iPhone, the company has released an official statement warning users that "unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs" could cause "irreparable damage to the iPhone's software." Furthermore, the firm stated that these apps could result in the handset becoming "permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed" -- you know, like the one coming "later this week" that includes the iTunes WiFi Music Store. As if that wasn't bad enough, the release also notes that "unauthorized modifications to the iPhone's software" violates the iPhone software license agreement and "voids the warranty." Ouch.[Via MacNN]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris @ Sep 24th 2007 6:16PM
Which is all good until people start using stun guns to completely fry their phones, then make Apple replace them under the normal terms of the warranty...
Jdog @ Sep 24th 2007 6:29PM
Anyone who is cell phone savvy enough to unlock/hack/etc. their iPhone should also be smart enough to realize that ALL of the aforementioned actions would completely void the manufacturer's warranty/software agreement/etc. How did you people NOT see this coming?
As soon as you hack the iPhone and break off from at least one of the two parent companies, that's it. You're hosed. AT&T is a business and businesses don't appreciate a bunch of snot-nose little hippies who think it's cool to play "screw the establishment" and cause them, in turn, to loose revenue.
Or maybe you just think the iPhone is 'cool' and want it to work with your plan on T-Mobile. Instead of stealing the service for yourself, put your big boy/big girl pants on and move to AT&T. That's the way it works. Sorry folks, we don't always get what we want. I know half of you are all "'F' the man" and proud of it, but seriously - the agreement for the iPhone is between AT&T and Apple. PERIOD. I repeat - THEY ARE BUSINESSES. THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY. THAT'S THE WAY CAPITALISM WORKS. If you don't like capitalism, I'm sure Cuba or Vietnam would love to have you.
tweak @ Sep 24th 2007 6:33PM
No one said you HAVE to get an AT&T contract when you buy your iPhone. Hence the reason you can walk out of the store without signing 2 years of your life away. I like to travel to Europe and want to use my German T-mobile SIM card when I'm there. Should I be forced to use AT&T's outrageous roaming charges? No.
Your argument sucks, please try again later.
RikF @ Sep 24th 2007 6:53PM
"Instead of stealing the service for yourself, put your big boy/big girl pants on and move to AT&T"
Who on earth is stealing anything? If people are paying for the phone then what exactly are they stealing?
PG @ Sep 24th 2007 7:44PM
Jdog - you, sir, is a retard. Your retardation is evident from a simple fact that you are unaware of how people buy iPhones. Let me clue you in - when I pay a full unsubsidized price for the device I can do with it whatever I'm pleased, including unlocking, hacking, and molesting it in any manner I deem necessary. Moreover, as I unlock these phones, I take great pleasure in profiting off clueless fanboys/girls who are willing to pay $100.00 or more over retail just so they can take their shiny new toy to T-Mobile or elsewhere. I love Steve Jobs and I love Apple, but not for the reasons you may think. I love them for over $1000.00 in profits I made in the last two weeks selling unlocked iPhones, and I will continue to do so for as long as I can.
As for the Apple/AT&T not liking what I do, well.... as far as I'm concerned, they can kiss my hairy ass.
highpitch1204 @ Sep 24th 2007 11:07PM
You are mad because you has signed up two-year contract and later discovered you can actually unlock it without binding contract. Well, it's too late, don't get jealous. When you bought the phone, the capitalism tells that the phone is yours; you can do whatever you want. If you can't, that's NOT capitalism, but rather communism. If you like it to be that way, you should be in Cuba or Viet yourself.
namtastic @ Sep 24th 2007 10:30PM
@tweak: "No one said you HAVE to get an AT&T contract when you buy your iPhone."
Actually, they did.
http://store.apple.com -- "Minimum new 2-year wireless service plan and activation fee required to activate iPhone features, including iPod; plans are subject to AT&T credit approval."
@PG:
Oh sure, you can do whatever you want to it. Just don't expect any official support.
Let's just hope all those "clueless fanboys" don't start knocking down your door to solve their dead iPhone problems once this update rolls out.
People:
DMCA = it's legal to unlock phone = no one can sue you under the purview of the DMCA for circumventing copyright protection systems. It's not an endorsement or enabler, it's a protection. It means you're safe. The same way it doesn't mean it is illegal for cellphones companies to lock them in the first place.
Don't buy a product if you don't agree with its terms, that is your power as a consumer. Don't encourage these sorts of contracts by giving one (or both) of them your hard-earned money. The day you stop encouraging these companies to make these sorts of business deals is the day we'll start to see a real unlocked phone market in this country. But as long as everyone's happy sucking on the subsidized teat of the networks, this will never happen.
Imagine if Apple had announced the iPhone with AT&T exclusivity, and there were no lines. Imagine what Apple would have done next. But self-control is in short supply, I see.
dale @ Sep 29th 2007 6:09PM
Jdog, what a To**ser you really are.
When the iPhone comes to the UK, I want one, BUT the carrier of Apples choosing in the UK was O2, great but O2 have patchy coverage and NONE at all where I both live and work, so the choice is no iPhone or a hacked iPhone...
Hacked iPhone it is then!
Perhaps if Apple were not so gready anf short sighted then selling a contract free phone would be the best thing to do, might actuall sell more units, here in the UK especially....
trevor @ Sep 24th 2007 7:00PM
I'll never understand the gratification some people get by commenting on stories as if they were the end-all, know-all authority on all the issues involved, then talking down (at length) to others who think otherwise. It's mind-boggling.
I would guess this move is due to pressure from AT&T. A lot of people in the US have been turned off by the exclusive service commitment, hence the demand for unlocked phones (I'd love an iPhone, but I think the price and quality of T-mobile's service far outweigh the need to keep up with the iJoneses). It seems like Apple would make more money with a lax unlocking policy, as opening up the iPhone to multiple carriers would drastically increase its potential market. The only company who wins here is AT&T.
Seriously though, is anyone doubting that a post-update version of the hack is going to be released in record time?
jgignac @ Sep 29th 2007 11:59AM
Well AT&T and apple care. Apple is not only fleecing its consumers (especially early adapters) for full pop pricing with no subsidization on 2 year contracts, they are also getting a nice chunk of the AT&T contracts. 10% to 20% I would guess?? These deals are obviously more lucrative then actual hardware sales or they would have just released the handsets and sold way more of them unlocked. One could have wondered if they may have done just as well selling it to the carriers and making them overpay for it and let them subsidize it.
Jdog @ Sep 24th 2007 7:02PM
If you purchase an iPhone in the United States, it must be with AT&T per their exclusivity agreement with Apple. Yeah, it sucks that you have to pay roaming in Germany, but you dont' have the freedom to remove the SIM card on an iPhone, which means YOU DO have to pay those roaming charges in Germany if you choose to own an iPhone as a resident of the US. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have bought the phone. You can't always have the best of both worlds.
Jdog @ Sep 24th 2007 7:07PM
What are you stealing?! Hello?! That's monthly service revenue that AT&T is losing! THEY are the only ones able to provide service for those phones. That is money they are supposed to get that they WON'T be getting because some people wont play by the rules.
pmow @ Sep 24th 2007 7:38PM
Fortunately "rules" are not the same as "laws". It's perfectly legal to unlock phones.
Preston @ Sep 24th 2007 7:40PM
I don't think you get it...
When you goto an Apple store, you aren't buying a phone and a contract. You are buying a phone. Now, when you go to use the phone, because of the software that is in place, it forces you to get a contract with AT&T as locked through iTunes.
Any other phone that is linked to a service provider, you buy the service and the phone so that even if you never insert their card, you still owe the monthly fee or the termination fee. AT&T and Apple decided to unbind the process so that the iPhone didn't have to be purchased at the same time as a contract.
Now that people have found reasonable ways to take personal advantage of that, I am sure they are rethinking that initial plan, and wish they would have sold the iPhone and the service at the same time, bundled-only.
Chris @ Sep 24th 2007 7:51PM
Jdog,
Your argument doesn't hold up because anyone that can afford one can walk into an Apple store, and purchase an iPhone without having to enter into a service agreement with AT&T. Activation of service is NOT a condition of sale for the device.
There is no carrier subsidy on the U.S.-version of iPhone at this time, thus AT&T has contributed nothing to the purchasers of iPhones.
If AT&T were subsidizing the hardware, buyers would be required to enter into a qualifying service agreement as a condition of receiving the subsidized price of the device.
The SIM lock on the device is a mechanism by which Apple/AT&T can attempt to steer users into activating with AT&T so both companies can receive their respective portions of the monthly service fees as stipulated by the agreement between the two entities. Each iPhone sold without a concurrent or future AT&T service activation represents a potential revenue opportunity for them - nothing more, nothing less. No one has taken or stolen anything from AT&T or Apple because there is no legal obligation to pay or otherwise give them anything beyond the price of the device (plus any applicable taxes) at time of purchase.
As for the warranty, Apple is well within their rights void the warranty of modded phones. It's a horrible P.R. move, but certainly defensible from a legal perspective.
Magnus_Z @ Sep 24th 2007 7:58PM
The rules are as pmow put it that it is legal to unlock a phone.
For almost *every* other cell phones what they do is that they sell the phone subsidized with a contract and almost all of them are available to buy directly from the phone maker at full price unlocked.
Apple could have offered the phone at a cheaper price exclusive to AT&T and full price directly from them. But they didn't.... they tried to get both the full phone price and the contract. But in the end we have the right (ie. it is legal) to unlock our phones.
PG @ Sep 24th 2007 8:02PM
Repeat after me so that it can hopefully register in your stupid head - when I pay full price for something I will do with it whatever I want. Get it yet? Ever wonder why AT&T does not force you to activate the phone at the time of purchase?
Will @ Sep 24th 2007 7:55PM
Can someone tell me if you HAVE to accept a firmware update? I would be content with not having the iTunes WiFi Music store on my phone as long as it meant not bricking my phone.
PG @ Sep 24th 2007 8:03PM
No, you don't have to.
Magnus_Z @ Sep 24th 2007 8:05PM
I'm wondering if it is legal of Apple to brick hacked phone as it is legal for us to unlock our phones. I'm pretty sure someone who got their phone bricked could sue them for destroying their property.
I'm sure Apple can void the warranty or refuse to support the phone in future iTunes updates however. It is part of the game...
pmow @ Sep 24th 2007 8:15PM
You could try and sue them if it was a forced update, but as was mentioned earlier the updates are not required. Also, "bricking" a phone is mostly a software problem, not a hardware issue...so if you just voided that warranty by hacking it, I doubt they could really be held responsible for messing up said software as they cannot possibly know what hacks you will install on it.
Magnus_Z @ Sep 24th 2007 8:21PM
No I just meant if they force and update on your phone that bricks it, it probably should be illegal.
But yes if it is not required and you update anyway... well.. that is quite stupid. ;)
suflyky @ Sep 24th 2007 10:08PM
Jdog, you must work for AT&T or Apple otherwise you would not make such baseless statements or maybe you've never travel out of the borders of the united states... unlock GSM phones are used everywhere else in the world... if i purchase the iphone, it becomes my property, thus i can do whatever i please i.e. unlock the phone... in fact, the iphone was not the first to introduce the technology apple stole; the technology was first released by dopod international from china(check out the dopod s1: http://kingdu.en.ec21.com/product_detail.jsp?group_id=GC02201868&product_id=CA02202247&product_nm=Hot_Selling_Dopod_900_U1000_the_Dopod_S1_As_Apple_Iphone)...
for anyone who wants to purchase unlocked iphones visit: http://www.welectronics.com/gsm/misc/APPLE-IPHONE-8GB.HTML... ...
AT&T and Verizon will eventually learn that consumers flexibility is better much preferred by consumers than imposing their will on the consumer
And for those consumer who have t-mobile, att or other GSM service and travel out of the US as often as I do, but desire to keep their home based number as emergency and wants to use the local country GSM service you can purchase dual GSM unlocked phones at: http://products.ec21.com/manufacturers/dual_sim_gsm_phone.html
Michael @ Sep 24th 2007 10:11PM
Is it possible to sync the phone with iTunes without installing the upcoming update? Can I undo all hacks by just resetting the iphone (with installing the old firmware, resetting again and installing the new one, than unlocking the phone again?)
thx
Joxes @ Sep 24th 2007 11:35PM
JDOG sorry but you suck big time bro !!! Same thing for your arguments.
When you a cellphone full retail the carrier MUST give you an unlock code.
I asked ATT and Apple but they are so greedy that non of them could provide me with an unlock code. So I unlock myself my iPhone.
nerdslashpimp @ Sep 25th 2007 1:13AM
"When you a cellphone full retail the carrier MUST give you an unlock code."
LOL. no.
Jigar @ Sep 25th 2007 1:32AM
Well this was to be expected. OF COURSE the unlock causes "irreparable damage"...to Apple/AT&T...monetarily :).
Anthony @ Sep 25th 2007 2:07AM
I think it hurts AT&T much more than Apple.
Anyone who gets there [unlocked] iPhone bricked won't run to AT&T and say, "give me service now..." They will be pissed and just wait for the next hack.
MattWPBS @ Sep 25th 2007 9:01AM
Anyone who's shocked at this, or expects Apple to not go after unlocked phones again in the future, is a bit deluded.
Apple get revenue share from the network operators, and I suspect that over the lifetime of the contract that's higher than the original amount paid for the iPhone in the store. If you unlock and move away from that carrier/call plan, then Apple do not see that revenue.
The only question for Apple is how much the extra revenue is worth compared to any bad publicity from bricking hacked phones. If the increase in mobile revenue outweighs the decrease in the number of phones sold, then they'll do it.
tweak @ Sep 25th 2007 9:14AM
@ namtastic
Wow dude, you really need to learn how to use evidence in an argument. If you'll kindly read over what you've pasted up there:
"Minimum new 2-year wireless service plan and activation fee required to activate iPhone features, including iPod; plans are subject to AT&T credit approval."
Did I ever say anything about activating the phone? Nope. So maybe I'll say what I said a little more clearly, "You do not have to purchase AT&T service to own an iPhone."
thrlride @ Sep 25th 2007 10:28AM
@tweak
True, but you are 'supposed' to get a 2 year contract with AT&T to use the functions of the iPhone.
"Did I ever say anything about activating the phone? Nope. So maybe I'll say what I said a little more clearly, "You do not have to purchase AT&T service to own an iPhone.""
Rex @ Sep 25th 2007 10:17AM
Ah JDog,
Seems you've made the hippies restless...
For the others, Apple gets a share of the revenue from AT&T, a frigging huge share.
Sure you don't have to activate the iPhone, but then you'd have a crippled iPod Touch. So, someone decides they don't want a crippled iPod touch, so they'll hack their phone.
Why? Well, hippie logic goes, "I want the hip, ultra-cool Apple device, but I don't want to give Apple all the revenue that enables them to develop the hip, ultra-cool device".
Since probably only an insignficant percentage of those unlocking iPhones actually travel internationally, the only reason people are unlocking them is to use them on T-Mobile (the "other" GSM network, that has far less coverage). Hmmm, where's the logic in that? Now you're paying T-Mobile the money, Apple ain't getting a cent from service, and they're the ones that built the device.
As the ad goes "I'm sticking it to the man", well "you are the man, so you're sticking it to yourself".
Okay, putting on my flamesuit. Have fun, boys and girls!
Jason RH Castle @ Sep 25th 2007 11:34AM
Rex,
The only part I would argue with you is that T-Mobile has "far less coverage". Their coverage is pretty dang significant if you actually use it and test it out. I get service with my T-Mobile line in places my AT&T line is useless. The opposite is true as well, granted. However, they are pretty good about covering the US either through their own towers or roaming agreements.
Now, back to the topic at hand. While I agree with Apple's right to react in this manner, I disagree with them doing so. I do travel internationally about once a year. I ALWAYS use prepaid SIMs when I do. I refuse to pay roaming rates which, are no matter how you argue it, outrageous. So, I prefer a SIM unlocked mobile. Secondly, Apple touted the fact that third party developers could develop software apps to run on the phone. So far, the only when to get these to work without going through Safari and EDGE, is to jailbreak and SSH the phone. It does nothing to damage the mobile. Their argument is flawed here. I do agree that if you dismantle or disassemble the phone, then your warranty should be void. However, software "hacks" so far do not do irreparable damage to the device, and do not limit its function. Rather it opens it up to be much more. I would think that Apple, a company that touts itself as being pro-consumer, would see that.
Now, I agree with the other posters above that they are losing revenue. What they will do about that remains to be seen. I think it is somewhat suspicious that the latest update, which was promised a couple weeks ago with the iTunes wireless store, is taking so long to get released. I would not surprise me one bit if Apple included some sort of "update" either relocking phones or totally bricking them altogether. That is why I, for one, will wait for others to report when that software becomes available.
Just my $.02...
trooth @ Sep 25th 2007 5:19PM
I wonder if this is part of the reason why Apple's first choice was Verizon Wireless. If it had been a CDMA phone, unlocking it wouldn't make a difference, as there would be no SIM cards to allow for service. Either way, the practice of unlocking phones and using a different service goes against the whole point of the Apple/AT&T agreement.
AT&T had to bend over backwards to make changes to their network for the IPhone. Apple makes 100% from the sell of the phone, and a percentage of the service fees from AT&T serviced IPhones. AT&T makes money on their service charges, and the increased customer base helps with thier stocks etc. So the unlocked IPhone on a TMobile is sticking it to Apple and AT&T, and TMobile misses out on being able to take advantage of IPhone price plan points etc.
Depending on how wide spread this issue is, it can have many effects on the industry, especially for GSM carriers. I am sure they figured that a small percentage of the consumers were going to unlock the device. I would venture to say that the IPhone has been one of the most unlocked phones to date. It will be interesting to see how much the sales figures drop when the phone gets released in Europe. Apple is probably selling considerably more IPhones because of the people who are unlocking them and sending them elsewhere. Of course they are looking at these sales figures and seeing that the recurring income from the service plans is not matching up.
I would bet that you are going to see more antihack patches and updates in the future especially when the European IPhones hit. At that point they are going to want to ensure that they are getting all of those service charges. This is certainly going to have an effect on future "Carrier Exclusive" phones for the GSM companies. As more and more consumers learn about unlocking their phone, I don't see how equipment manufacturers and GSM carriers can really claim to have carrier exclusive phones. Especially when the phone is being sold without required service activation at the Point of Sale.
Jason RH Castle @ Sep 25th 2007 7:25PM
No matter how you cut it, it is consider "illegal" to prevent customers from unlocking their mobiles in the US. Manufacturers, and more specifically, carriers could be in trouble with the Fed if they implement that type of practice.
trooth @ Sep 25th 2007 10:25PM
How do you figure that? The copyright law states that it is not illegal to unlock your phone. That prevents the end user from being prosecuted for altering the programming (which is copyrighted) for the sole purpose of unlocking the phone.
Turning that around to say that it is illegal for a manufacturer to prevent their phone from being used on another service is quite a stretch. The law prevents then enduser from being prosecuted under copyright laws. It in no way says that cell phone manufacturers have to make their phones unlockable. The law is just a copyright law and nothing more. You should actually read it.