Class action lawsuit against Apple [Archive]

Prelector

09-28-2007, 06:01 PM

Yeah, it will. But it still is illegal for them to have a locked phone and for us to unlock it and for them to relock it....illegal.

This isn't quite true...

It's not illegal for them to make a locked phone.
It IS legal for you to unlock your purchased phone, as long as you didn't plan to profit from the unlock.
It's unknown what the legal status is on them relocking it again.
You'd have a VERY hard time proving intent on the "bricking", especially since they warned you ahead of time.

You'll probably see a class action in the new couple of weeks over this issue, I'll guarantee it. If for no other reason, then to test the status of a carrier "relocking" a device. This is an issue that needs to be settled in the courts.

I'd highly recommend you do a bit of research before you try and pursue this though, as it's fairly apparent you don't know much about a consumer's rights, re:cellphones or electronics. While you did purchase the iPhone, it's NOT "yours to do with as you wish", as you are bound by parts of the EULA you agreed to.

As to the others mention of agreeing to the EULA, agreement to a contract doesn't mean that contract is valid... It's already been stated (in the section 1201 exception) that agreeing to a EULA regarding cellphone "locking" or "unlocking" isn't enforcable by the manufacturer, and that portion of the EULA isn't legally binding on the purchaser.

And for anyone asking for "proof" or "show me"... look it up yourself. I'm sick of linking and explaining the info on this exception. (I'm also a bit tired of folks too lazy to do their own research on a particular topic.)

420greg

09-28-2007, 06:15 PM

Yeah, it will. But it still is illegal for them to have a locked phone and for us to unlock it and for them to relock it....illegal.

In the US it is not illegal to unlock your phone.
It is not illegal for them to re-lock it either.

UriA702

09-28-2007, 07:04 PM

The suit would be thrown out before ever making it to court. Apple did not say you can not unlock your phone, on the contrary. What they did say was "Hey, you can put as much 3rd party software on your phone as you want, but when we release our update, the damage caused to your phones existing software may very well prevent the update from working properly. Thus permanently impairing your phone."
Permanently? I doubt it.
The bricked phones are down and out for now, but the hackers will figure this out in a few days nothing to worry about.
I'm sure that as we speak plenty of folks are working on some files that will flash your phone back to older firmware, restoring it to 1.0.2.
I mean come on guys lets be serious for a minute, the people whose phones are bricked did not listen, and it did indeed brick their phone. their fault. I just feel bad for people who purchased unlocked iphones through 3rd party retailers and aren't so tech savvy - their phones are now locked and it is not their phone - they did not know the repercussions of purchasing an unlocked device.

SmartAlx

09-28-2007, 09:11 PM

It is not illegal for them to re-lock it either.
This hasn't been tested in court yet. That's why we need there to be a class action lawsuit.

If the hackers can figure out how to simply relock the iPhones then we might have a serious case against Apple. If it's true, then it means that rather than relock the phones, Apple decided to deter further unlocking by bricking the few phones that were unlocked. This is especially true if the hackers discover that Apple went out of their way to brick unlocked iPhones. If they can present evidence in court it would be very bad for Apple.

Winning the lawsuit won't just help the "iBrick" owners. It will set a precedence for EVERY phone manufacturer and their attitude towards modification. Right now there is a war on between manufacturer and modifier.

If we win this lawsuit, we win the war. Phone manufacturers won't be allowed to stop people from modifying their own devices. Then maybe more manufacturers will start to take the open source ideal.

pab277

09-28-2007, 10:41 PM

im pretty sure that wouldnt hold up well in court seeing the fact that you violated your user agreement, violated the warranty, and the fact that they gave you a clear warning before updating that it would brick the iphone.

gcvt

09-28-2007, 10:56 PM

LOL - an attorney would have to be a damn fool to file a class action lawsuit against Apple on behalf of people who violated the end user agreement, software license agreement, etc.

No chance. No way. Fuggggetaboutit!

Just because it legal to unlock your phone doesn't mean Apple has to make it easy, or even possible, for you to do so.

End this silliness! :angry:

geordisjd

09-28-2007, 11:05 PM

"yawn".:gasp::rolleyes::eek:...I thought there used to be a smiley for yawn ;^)

chris

09-28-2007, 11:08 PM

Apple did issue this statement (http://www.everythingiphone.com/news/iphone-hardware/apple-warns-hackers-20070925344). Not to mention, there is the agreement you agree to when upgrading to 1.1.1.

http://www.everythingtreo.com/images/Picture-6.png

T3Logic

09-28-2007, 11:58 PM

geordisjd

09-29-2007, 12:04 AM

So you say, but I don't think so. Groundless lawsuits end up nowhere. Even lawyers get smart.

kency79

09-29-2007, 12:08 AM

Eula are irrelevant. Look at microsoft history when they intertwined the browser in xp and other times they tried to lock out certain software from 3rd party contributers.

Apple is the new MS of old.

As you see now the same replies to questions that were asked when MS tried this practice. Instead of people saying by a mac they are saying buy a windows mobile phone.

IBM then Microsoft and now Apple have always tried this dictatorship of software/hardware. It also has been ruled in favor of the consumer and left the company with a bad rep. So once this class action lawsuit is filed development for the iphone will slow and updates will be less and less.

YOU ALL ARE WASTING YOUR TIME. THERE WAS A WARNING BEFORE YOU UPDATED!!!!

I DON'T SEE THE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT. IT WAS CLEAR FROM JANUARY 9 - NO 3RD PARTY APPS, ONLY AT&T PROVIDER.

IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE BEING LOCKED DOWN, YOU SHOULDN'T BOUGHT THE IPHONE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

HUH ENOUGH SAID LET ME GO BACK WITH MY FULLY FUNCTIONAL IPHONE.

webb

09-29-2007, 12:20 AM

YOU ALL ARE WASTING YOUR TIME. THERE WAS A WARNING BEFORE YOU UPDATED!!!!

I DON'T SEE THE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT. IT WAS CLEAR FROM JANUARY 9 - NO 3RD PARTY APPS, ONLY AT&T PROVIDER.

IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE BEING LOCKED DOWN, YOU SHOULDN'T BOUGHT THE IPHONE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

HUH ENOUGH SAID LET ME GO BACK WITH MY FULLY FUNCTIONAL IPHONE.

This is a definitive statement! Lawsuits.....always the answer in this country. Even though you speak the truth...someone in this forum will always butt heads with you.

FW <---- also going back to his fully functional iPhone!

pierce the veil

09-29-2007, 02:59 AM

What about if the new firmware makes my iphone unable to operate with the Drive + Play? i tried it today and it didn't work so maybe i need to recheck everything is plugged in, but if i find out the new firmware wont work with it, and i CANT downgrade the firmware to use it again, im going to be very angry.

Rhinohd

09-29-2007, 04:19 AM

T3Logic

09-29-2007, 08:13 AM

Why is it people think i bricked my phone. I didn't update. Mine is fully functional plus has a lot more. I have custom ringtones that I did not have to pay for... ;-)

I guess it's because I am a consumer advocate.

Even my own software that I write and sell and have a eula. If someone modifies it and brick the software, I void the warranty and charge to fix it ;-)

jjvaldez

09-29-2007, 08:16 AM

i would not touch that with a 10 foot pole......

SmartAlx

09-30-2007, 09:49 PM

A class action lawsuit will make some law firm a ton of dough and get us users another gift certificate....and cost Apple millions, teach them a lesson, create a VERY needed president, and all modders (iphone, psp, xbox, etc.) will win the modification war once and for all.

I DID already say this.

geordisjd

09-30-2007, 09:53 PM

...and cost Apple millions, teach them a lesson, create a VERY needed president, and all modders (iphone, psp, xbox, etc.) win the modification war once and for all.

I DID already say this.

Dreaming is not forbidden.

tfg

09-30-2007, 11:07 PM

Rhinohd

10-01-2007, 02:23 AM

...and cost Apple millions, teach them a lesson, create a VERY needed president, and all modders (iphone, psp, xbox, etc.) will win the modification war once and for all.

I DID already say this.

Oh it will teach them a lesson alright.. How to get around the laws to protect their products and profit margin. The lawsuit or so called "lesson" would just get passed on to the consumer. It might even cost some hard working people some jobs...

But anyway, should they be able to brick phones, NO.

I glad you DID already say that...

SmartAlx

10-01-2007, 09:30 AM

Oh it will teach them a lesson alright.. How to get around the laws to protect their products and profit margin. The lawsuit or so called "lesson" would just get passed on to the consumer. It might even cost some hard working people some jobs..What do you mean? No iphone moddrr/hacker has broken any laws. THAT paeticular precident's already been set. We are allowed to modify our phones. But the president that hasn't been set is whether or not the company is allowed to take steps to undo our mods or to brick phones that have been nodded.

If you ate concerned with Apple's bottom line, many people have made the very valid point that Apple's stance against 3rd party native software is stupid. They should provide a SDK, provide an avenue for Apple authorized software, and take a portion of profits. Everybofy wins. People aren't so much against paying for apps they want. They just want the apps. If anything, this would CREATE jobs for new iPhone developers.

Prelector

10-01-2007, 03:04 PM

I don't get it? How do you think you have a case against Apple? The iphone was intended to be used only with AT&T. You and everyone knew that. They make no other guarantee that it will work with another carrier and by definition, it shouldn't work with any other carrier. So by default, if they make your phone not work with another carrier, there's nothing you can do about it.

Oh Really? ONLY AT&T huh, and it was designed and manufactured this way? No guarantee it will work on another network, and shouldn't work with any other carrier...

****, someone better have a LONG talk with O2 in the UK, Orange in France, T-Mobile in Germany, and Apple then... they've got a BIG MESS heading their way in a month!

Tell ya what tfg, before you start spouting the "corporate line" that Steve/Apple hands to you, why don't you try to do a bit of research yourself first, or hell, just stop and THINK before you start to regurgitate Apple's PR crap.

In case this is your first cellphone, lemme give ya a bit of a lesson:

First, GSM (the technology the iPhone uses) is ubiquitous across the planet, with the exception of the frequency range the modem uses... all other internals are Defined by STANDARDS. This means that there's no such thing as "designed for xyz network", once again, with the exception of the modem frequency (these frequencies are country based, and there are only 4 options).

Second, NO MANUFACTURER, that isn't directly tied to a Network Provider, is going to spend the R&D time and resources, let alone the tool and die setup costs, to Design and Manufacture a complicated device like a cell phone that's specific to only one Network. They design and build the phone, send out the specs to the various providers for feedback/review, then drop in the applicable modem card to support a particular network type. Finally, anything specific needed to work on a particular carrier is tweaked in Software.

goblues38

10-01-2007, 05:30 PM

It clearly states ON THE BOX "requires a 2 year Commitment from AT&T" and in every retail location or web site.

Also, the EULA is widely documented.

Bottom line, if you dont want AT&T with a 2 year agreement, and you want to "hacK" the OS with 3rd party apps, you can still buy the phone, but you are at apple mercy.

Apple doesnt make money if you dont use AT&T. Plain and simple.

And ll the people saying they make too much money. You are idiots just too low on the totem pole. All corparaions Microsoft, coke, Apple, HP ect ect are there to make money for the stock holders. Dont blame apple, buy apple stock and get in on the goods.

But most of all quit whinning. Just because you can drive 100mph doesnt mean it right. Some day, the cops will get wise and bring you back to speed.

All apple is doing is getting people to use iPhone as it is intented. With their software on AT&T's network. PERIOD>

goblues38

10-01-2007, 05:36 PM

****, someone better have a LONG talk with O2 in the UK, Orange in France, T-Mobile in Germany, and Apple then... they've got a BIG MESS heading their way in a month!
.

Do you have a job. Are you that clueless. Each of those providers is the sole network for that country. i agree with you the phone is not designed for a specific network.

But wireless partnerships and equipment costs are predicated on you buying a phone and using that phone on the network specified. Without that aggreement apple and AT&T dont make any money.

The $400 iPhone is subsidized if you willl (details too long to go into again) buy at&T and apple. The 2 share equipment cost to generate traffic on AT&T's network. With the average use over 2 years factored into the bounty AT&T pays apple.

SmartAlx

10-01-2007, 06:16 PM

It clearly states ON THE BOX "requires a 2 year Commitment from AT&T" and in every retail location or web site.

Also, the EULA is widely documented.

Bottom line, if you dont want AT&T with a 2 year agreement, and you want to "hacK" the OS with 3rd party apps, you can still buy the phone, but you are at apple mercy.
You're redirecting the argument. Boy your side loves to do that! We are trying to stay on topic yet you guys keep changing the subject. Though I do understand. It's quite common for people to use unorthodox methods when they start to lose their argument. :p

The subject isn't what Apple sold the U.S. iPhone to do. The subject is whether or not the iPhone is capable of doing the things Apple is trying to prevent now.

It is capable of doing the things that Apple is trying to prevent without damaging the phone*.
People have the legal right to make the changes they are making to their iPhones.
The question about whether or not Apple has the right to damage phones that have been modified has yet to be resolved in the courts.*The question about whether or not Apple is maliciously bricking unlocked phones has also yet to be discovered.

Prelector

10-01-2007, 06:33 PM

Do you have a job. Are you that clueless. Each of those providers is the sole network for that country. i agree with you the phone is not designed for a specific network.

But wireless partnerships and equipment costs are predicated on you buying a phone and using that phone on the network specified. Without that aggreement apple and AT&T dont make any money.

The $400 iPhone is subsidized if you willl (details too long to go into again) buy at&T and apple. The 2 share equipment cost to generate traffic on AT&T's network. With the average use over 2 years factored into the bounty AT&T pays apple.

First, save your personal attacks for someone that will take it, or better yet, don't make personal attacks...

That comment you quoted was clearly (and obviously) in context with the previous sentence, and directly relevant to the quoted posters comment. The quoted posters comment was about the iPhone being intended for only one carrier:

The iphone was intended to be used only with AT&T. You and everyone knew that. They make no other guarantee that it will work with another carrier and by definition, it shouldn't work with any other carrier.

I made no comments or remarks about pricing, profit, or subsidization.

BUT, since you want to talk "money"...

Apple doesnt make money if you dont use AT&T. Plain and simple.

Yea... this is WRONG... Apple's *estimated* manufacturing costs per unit (as reported from folks that know ALOT more about that than I do) is ~$200-$250 US/unit. When sold at $600 per unit, that's $350ea GP per sale, BEFORE you activated the device, to Apple. At current $400 sales price, that's still $150ea GP per sale, BEFORE activation. Now, Apple does lose out on that sweet recurring revenue deal from ATT, and ATT doesn't make a dime if you don't register, but Apple does.

The $400 iPhone is subsidized if you willl (details too long to go into again) buy at&T and apple. The 2 share equipment cost to generate traffic on AT&T's network. With the average use over 2 years factored into the bounty AT&T pays apple.

No, please... show me the details, or link them, or anything... Really, where are you pulling this subsidization from?

In fact, Apple does not offer a subsidy for the iPhone to any of it's carriers (in fact, this is DIRECTLY the problem between Orange and Apple in France). Traditionally, a subsidy was the carrier selling the customer a phone at a greatly reduced price, with the intent to recover that money over time with the contract you sign.

The Manufacturer sells a phone for $400, the Carrier pays say $200 of the price of the handset, you pay the remaining $200, and you sign a 2year contract with that carrier.
With the iPhone however, Apple sells the iPhone for $400, the Carrier pays $0, and you pay the full amount of $400.

There are additional details of the financial contract between the Carrier and Apple, regarding recurring "royalty" payments, but those aren't part of any subsidy arrangement.

Next time you come out to play, first play nice (or go home); second, make sure you've gotten your homework done ahead of time.

DRabbit

10-02-2007, 12:23 AM

Next time you come out to play, first play nice (or go home); second, make sure you've gotten your homework done ahead of time.

Well just to be fair (even though you weren't replying to me), MANUFACTURING costs aren't the only thing that go into calculating the profit-margin of any particular item. You have to include marketing costs, research & development, licensing of any 3rd party software (like MP4 codecs), software writers and other staff, packaging, and probably other things I'm forgetting. And don't underestimate those costs either.

But that's just to be fair ... ;)

mlass

10-02-2007, 12:33 AM

Is it possible to file a lawsuit against apple for the recent update that bricked peoples iphones?

Here is a nice article

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/08/27/dmca/index.php?lsrc=mwrss

The exclusive contract between the two companies could lead to an antitrust lawsuit if a competitor or customer could successfully argue there’s no other device like the iPhone available on the market, she said.

Prelector

10-02-2007, 01:39 AM

Well just to be fair (even though you weren't replying to me), MANUFACTURING costs aren't the only thing that go into calculating the profit-margin of any particular item. You have to include marketing costs, research & development, licensing of any 3rd party software (like MP4 codecs), software writers and other staff, packaging, and probably other things I'm forgetting. And don't underestimate those costs either.

But that's just to be fair ... ;)

And you're right there. But, you'll notice I specified GP (Gross Profit) and not OP (Operating Profit). Plus, marketing costs and R&D costs (and don't forget Manufacturing setup costs like tool and die, etc) are all amortized across a set production run figure. In the case of the iPhone, I would expect that figure to be the initial 1mil unit sales goal. So, any device sold AFTER that amortization had been hit, wouldn't incure those costs to the OC (Operating Costs) line items.

Just to be fair... ;)

iAttorney

10-02-2007, 01:40 AM

a contract is comprised of two parts, essentially, offer and acceptance. When you go to the apple store you are offering to pay the $399 bucks to apple for the phone. One you hand them the money and they hand you the phone, bam, contract, enforceable by law. That means, if your money is fake or the iPhone isn't really an iPhone then a breach has happened and someone will pay. That is contract 1 of this situation. You now are the proud owner of the mass of stuff that is the iPhone proper.

But wait, you wanted more than a paper weight? Well now we have a new contract, enter AT&T. The iPhone and Apple were used as an inducement to get you to agree to the terms of the second contract, the EULA. That contract's terms, among other things, require that you use the phone on AT&T to receive continued service. While it may not be against the law to unlock the phone later, thanks to a 3 year exemption passed by Congress, it isn't illegal for Apple to update their phones, a service which you contracted for.

As far as the argument that apple has some sort of duty to protect what you have done to the phone, that is in the contract as well. Part of that EULA is that to receive services, including waranty, you have to use Apple's copyrighted IP, the software, on their terms. What, you don't like those terms? Well, you can either use the phone without apple's help, it is your mass of stuff remember, pay the ETF to AT&T and buy a Nokia, or succumb to the realization that you did in fact sign a legally enforceable document that you have to hold up your end in, to enjoy the phone.

My two cents. Man that was alot to type on my iPhone :)

Prelector

10-02-2007, 02:04 AM

But wait, you wanted more than a paper weight? Well now we have a new contract, enter AT&T. The iPhone and Apple were used as an inducement to get you to agree to the terms of the second contract, the EULA. That contract's terms, among other things, require that you use the phone on AT&T to receive continued service. While it may not be against the law to unlock the phone later, thanks to a 3 year exemption passed by Congress, it isn't illegal for Apple to update their phones, a service which you contracted for.

It's not illegal for Apple to update their phones, but it MIGHT be illegal for them to knowingly force a relock (this hasn't been tested yet in court, so no one really knows what the legality is). Also, if intent could be proven, Apple's purposful "bricking" of the iPhone via said update *could* be argued as Destruction of Property, if you could successfully argue that the phone and ipod functions of the device are separate (potentially supported by the seperate EULAs you have to agree to for the iPhone). Personally, I think this is probably the avenue we'll see a future lawsuit take, as it moves things away from the EULA/IP realm that's so murky right now, and squarely into negligence realms.

As far as the argument that apple has some sort of duty to protect what you have done to the phone, that is in the contract as well. Part of that EULA is that to receive services, including waranty, you have to use Apple's copyrighted IP, the software, on their terms. What, you don't like those terms? Well, you can either use the phone without apple's help, it is your mass of stuff remember, pay the ETF to AT&T and buy a Nokia, or succumb to the realization that you did in fact sign a legally enforceable document that you have to hold up your end in, to enjoy the phone.

My two cents. Man that was alot to type on my iPhone :)

The first potential arguement here is Coersion: namely that there's no comparable product available, so you're forced to agree to Apple's "unreasonable" terms on said contract. (Potential Monopoly effect on an adhesion contract would be how the arguement might start off)

The second potential arguement could follow the Section 1201 Exemption, and that since you are legally permitted to unlock for personal use only, you haven't actually broken the contract. (this one is mighty dicey, depending on the circuit court you landed in)

Finally, one could follow the Brower v. Gateway (http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rwarner/legalaspects/tony_brower.htm) ruling, and further argue that since you had to open the box to read the EULA, the restocking fee placed an unfair burden on the consumer. (This one has some potential in my mind also, and might be a decent follow up complaint if #1 above failed.)

These are just my takes on the relevant issues however, and I'll be the first to admit that while I'm very interested in the law, I'm at best a studied amateur.

coal0101

10-02-2007, 02:19 AM

The first potential arguement here is Coersion: namely that there's no comparable product available, so you're forced to agree to Apple's "unreasonable" terms on said contract. (Potential Monopoly effect on an adhesion contract would be how the arguement might start off)

Well what are all those devices I see people carrying around all the time? They seem to be using them for email, web, listening to music, and making phone calls....that sure sounds like a similar product.

SmartAlx

10-02-2007, 09:35 AM

Well what are all those devices I see people carrying around all the time? They seem to be using them for email, web, listening to music, and making phone calls....that sure sounds like a similar product.

Im sorry. I seem to recall that Jobs said something about the iPhone revolutionizing the cellohone market. If those other phones didn't do that, then this one HAS to be different now doesn't it?

coal0101

10-02-2007, 10:11 AM

Im sorry. I seem to recall that Jobs said something about the iPhone revolutionizing the cellohone market. If those other phones didn't do that, then this one HAS to be different now doesn't it?

...and that set of knives I bought at 3am while watching tv was never supposed to need sharpening...do you believe everything a salesman tells you? What function does the iphone have that no other device can do...not how it does it but the end result. To sue a company saying they forced you to use the companies product is asinine. A cell phone is a luxury item (especially an iphone)...people used to live without them. If you want make a change how about going after drug companies that charge insane amounts of money to people that need them to live.

SmartAlx

10-02-2007, 10:50 AM

...and that set of knives I bought at 3am while watching tv was never supposed to need sharpening...do you believe everything a salesman tells you?
Wow, I never thought I’d hear a macfan call Steve Jobs a salesman, especially akin to a ginsu knife salesman! And support these tactics at the same time!! How did you pull that feat of logic off??
What function does the iphone have that no other device can do...not how it does it but the end result.What?? I’m not going to let you change the argument so easily. Why is the WAY something does something irrelevant? It’s affected sales. It’s one of the iPhones BIGGEST selling points! It’s practically the whole reason why a large portion of the buying public wanted the phone. THAT is what was revolutionary after all. But if you really insist, I’ll give you something that the iPhone has that no other phone has: the UI. How about that? The UI is one of the most important features on devices these days, and it defines HOW it does what it does. It can make or break someone’s satisfaction with the device. And we all know it. So we look for devices with good UIs.
To sue a company saying they forced you to use the companies product is asinine. A cell phone is a luxury item (especially an iphone)...people used to live without them. If you want make a change how about going after drug companies that charge insane amounts of money to people that need them to live.Nobody’s saying that we are being forced to use the phone. What they are saying is that if we want a phone with capabilities similar to the iPhone, there is only one choice: the iPhone. And why does it have to be a necessity? If it has to be a necessity to be allowed in court, then why was Ma Bell broken up? Why was Microsoft broken up? Were those necessities or luxuries?

goblues38

10-02-2007, 10:59 AM

With the iPhone however, Apple sells the iPhone for $400, the Carrier pays $0, and you pay the full amount of $400.

There are additional details of the financial contract between the Carrier and Apple, regarding recurring "royalty" payments, but those aren't part of any subsidy arrangement.

Next time you come out to play, first play nice (or go home); second, make sure you've gotten your homework done ahead of time.

Listen sparky. i have been in and around the mobile phone businees for 20+ years. Back before the free phone gimickl was invented. All carriers pay a bounty for each activation. that is used to reduce the cost of the phone. or line the coffers of the sellers. take it how you want.

Those DETAILS are hidden from the public and can't be linked to. So, we are both stuck as neither having proof. We jjust have to live with that.

As far as the i[phone being able to use 3rd party apps. yes it can, but does that maek it right. Apple owns the intelectual property of the OS and they dont want it. you signed the EULA. they can do what they want with their eula including bricking it if you break the eula.

Prelector

10-02-2007, 11:47 AM

Well what are all those devices I see people carrying around all the time? They seem to be using them for email, web, listening to music, and making phone calls....that sure sounds like a similar product.

Actually, the one thing the iPhone has that no other does is working iPod support. To my knowledge, no one else has reliable, working, iPod support integrated into a cell phone. So, if your music is iTunes based, you'd be stuck with the iPhone as the only available option. I will say though that I'm basing this on older knowledge of the Motorola attempts to integrate iPod functions, that were reported to be unsatisfactory. This isn't based on my own firsthand knowledge however.

Also, I was discussing potential legal arguements, as an intellectual exercise only, above, and not stating facts.

Prelector

10-02-2007, 12:00 PM

Listen sparky. i have been in and around the mobile phone businees for 20+ years. Back before the free phone gimickl was invented. All carriers pay a bounty for each activation. that is used to reduce the cost of the phone. or line the coffers of the sellers. take it how you want.

Those DETAILS are hidden from the public and can't be linked to. So, we are both stuck as neither having proof. We jjust have to live with that.

As far as the i[phone being able to use 3rd party apps. yes it can, but does that maek it right. Apple owns the intelectual property of the OS and they dont want it. you signed the EULA. they can do what they want with their eula including bricking it if you break the eula.

I'm not sure what your problem with me is, but I'd appreciate your refraining from the use of derogitory "nicknames" for me. I've made no personal attacks, passive or active, against you, and don't really care to receive them back.

Regarding the "subsidy" issue, I'm not sure how else to explain it, but there is no "subsidization" of the iPhone by ATT! Plain and simple! Yes, there are other financial portions of the contract between ATT and Apple, but those are NOT subsidies.

Subsidies, as used in the wireless industry, refer to the selling of a cell device at below list price to the customer, by the carrier, to entice them to sign up for service. Since you'd pay the same price for the device whether you purchased from ATT or from Apple, this isn't the case. Further, you can't argue assistance in manufacturing costs, since the price sold is above production cost. Apple isn't selling at a loss; in fact, they are selling the iPhone at a profit margin above their average.

And before you start making sweeping statements of fact regarding EULA law, and a manufacturers rights vs a consumers rights, you might want to study up a bit... One, EULAs aren't necessarily binding on their face, it largely depends on the wording of the EULA, and how it was presented to the consumer. Two, even if the EULA was found to be binding, that STILL doesn't necessarily give Apple the right to "do what they want with their eula" as you put it. Once again, this depends on what they are trying to do, how you might have violated the EULA, and what their intent was.

goblues38

10-02-2007, 03:11 PM

Since you'd pay the same price for the device whether you purchased from ATT or from Apple, this isn't the case. .

Again...it says it on the box "Requires 2 year AT&T commitment"

that is the way to get around only having the phone sold in AT&T stores. A kicker is paid back to apple for every activation. That is why apple is so upset over hacking. For every hacked phone turned up on another network, Apple loses $200-$300 plus the 1-3% residual (what ever it is).

As to name calling. Sparky is not derogitory. but you sure bully people around on this site and this thread. Just gioving it right back to you.

Tinman

10-02-2007, 04:10 PM

Again...it says it on the box "Requires 2 year AT&T commitment"

that is the way to get around only having the phone sold in AT&T stores. A kicker is paid back to apple for every activation.
A bonus is usually paid to dealers. All Apple did is cut out the dealers, and grab it for themselves. Apple is, essentially, acting as a dealer for AT&T.

HOWEVER, the iPhone is indeed not subsidized. And there is ample proof: for starters AT&T does not count the iPhone as a subsidized phone purchase. I am a new AT&T subscriber. I only have the iPhone. But since the iPhone is not a subsidized phone I am allowed to get another phone at the subsidized price. This applies to all iPhones when it comes to AT&T, and has been confirmed by countless others, AT&T CS, AT&T store, and even the AT&T Website.

--
Mike

Prelector

10-02-2007, 04:19 PM

Again...it says it on the box "Requires 2 year AT&T commitment"

that is the way to get around only having the phone sold in AT&T stores. A kicker is paid back to apple for every activation. That is why apple is so upset over hacking. For every hacked phone turned up on another network, Apple loses $200-$300 plus the 1-3% residual (what ever it is).

As to name calling. Sparky is not derogitory. but you sure bully people around on this site and this thread. Just gioving it right back to you.

Any name is derogitory, if it's intended to be. And since I don't know you, and you don't know me, your use of "sparky" can only be construed as derogitory. It's sure as hell not used in a familiar or friendly way.

I'm not even going to bother on the bullying people part...

Yes, Apple has a revenue sharing arrangement with ATT on the iPhone; it's exact details aren't known, but rumored to be ~$200 initially and ~$9 per month. Not every dollar paid to Apple is considered a subsidy though. That's kinda why it's called "revenue sharing" instead of subsidy...

Subsidys are usually used to entice customers over to a carrier or network (and the locked phone was their guarantee to recover this subsidy). However, in the case of the iPhone, all I can guess is it was believed the device itself was enticement enough, so no additional discount was needed.

But I'll tell ya what, show me where ATT or Apple refers to a Subsidy regarding the iPhone, or show me where Apple is offering the iPhone at a greater price than $400 for the "locked" one for ATT... Show me one bit of proof or evidence and I'll be the first to admit you're right.

Until then, I'm done with you. I've tried to be polite, I've tried to be civil; but I've wasted enough time on you.

Prelector

10-02-2007, 04:27 PM

HOWEVER, the iPhone is indeed not subsidized. And there is ample proof: for starters AT&T does not count the iPhone as a subsidized phone purchase. I am a new AT&T subscriber. I only have the iPhone. But since the iPhone is not a subsidized phone I am allowed to get another phone at the subsidized price. This applies to all iPhones when it comes to AT&T, and has been confirmed by countless others, AT&T CS, AT&T store, and even the AT&T Website.

--
Mike

Thanx Mike, forgot that part. There it is, direct from ATT itself.

SmartAlx

10-02-2007, 07:10 PM

HOWEVER, the iPhone is indeed not subsidized. And there is ample proof: for starters AT&T does not count the iPhone as a subsidized phone purchase. I am a new AT&T subscriber. I only have the iPhone. But since the iPhone is not a subsidized phone I am allowed to get another phone at the subsidized price. This applies to all iPhones when it comes to AT&T, and has been confirmed by countless others, AT&T CS, AT&T store, and even the AT&T WYep, I'm shopping got a subsidized art phone myself.

That's a great point mike.

justahsquirrel

10-02-2007, 10:41 PM

Prelector

10-03-2007, 12:36 AM

well someone in NY did file a lawsuit over the $200 price drop and a few other things. Just saw it on the news.....google it...

Already been linked here in another thread...

And in the US, ANYONE can "file" a lawsuit, all it takes is someone to write up the complaint, and the filing fee for the particular court you're filing in.

Just because it's filed though, doesn't mean you have a snowballs chance of winning. In fact, after filing, if the clerk deems your suit "frivilous" then it will be discarded, before anything is ever done.

tzhourdeka

10-03-2007, 12:46 AM

So you want to sue a company who was just trying to keep the phone company the same? Isn't unlocking illegal? If so then you would be wasting your time.

Prelector

10-03-2007, 12:55 AM

So you want to sue a company who was just trying to keep the phone company the same? Isn't unlocking illegal? If so then you would be wasting your time.

Dude, really... did you read ANY of the posts in this thread?! It's been mentioned, MULTIPLE times, in MULTIPLE threads, with references, that unlocking is LEGAL in the US.

tzhourdeka

10-03-2007, 12:57 AM

Dude, really... did you read ANY of the posts in this thread?! It's been mentioned, MULTIPLE times, in MULTIPLE threads, with references, that unlocking is LEGAL in the US.No, no I don't waste time.

Hawk

10-03-2007, 01:39 AM

In all of this locking and unlocking of phones arguement, one thing that might be overlooked, although cannot be applied to all iPhone owners is that most have signed the 2 year commitment. That means that they have to pay a fee to break the contract. On that end AT&T still get their money.
But, new owners that do not activate through iTunes and unlock and go to another carrier, that is what Apple wants to prevent.
I fully understand why apple was carrier specific, but I do not agree with rendering a phone useless if it's been unlocked to use with another company, or with preventing the progression of the phone through 3rd party apps. That is going to be Nokia's greatest selling point when their phone hits the market, and depending on it's release, (say in 1-2 years) it's going to help them take a lot of Apple's business.

Roger

10-03-2007, 02:44 AM

"Form Contracts" can be beat in court and the user agreement is exactly that. Both parties in a contract need to have a say in it's drafting and form contracts don't allow for that.

A class action lawsuit will make some law firm a ton of dough and get us users another gift certificate.and you clicked next at the "form contract" which stated your agreement with it. nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to update. the subsidy unlock can easily be obtained from at&t after 90 days of service. those who chose to update after being warned that using a 3rd party unlock could very well brick the phone deserve the $400 paperweight they now have. just my .02. its not like anyone was blindsided by this.

Roger

10-03-2007, 02:51 AM

What do you mean? No iphone moddrr/hacker has broken any laws. THAT paeticular precident's already been set. We are allowed to modify our phones. But the president that hasn't been set is whether or not the company is allowed to take steps to undo our mods or to brick phones that have been nodded.

If you ate concerned with Apple's bottom line, many people have made the very valid point that Apple's stance against 3rd party native software is stupid. They should provide a SDK, provide an avenue for Apple authorized software, and take a portion of profits. Everybofy wins. People aren't so much against paying for apps they want. They just want the apps. If anything, this would CREATE jobs for new iPhone developers.i do agree with what you said, but a class action suit will hold no water in court simply because all apple has to do is say that the unauthorized mods damaged the phone causing the failure during the firmware update. in the end it will be the users fault not the manufacturers. it would prove to be very difficult to substantiate the claim that apple maliciously damged phones.

Roger

10-03-2007, 02:55 AM

Oh Really? ONLY AT&T huh, and it was designed and manufactured this way? No guarantee it will work on another network, and shouldn't work with any other carrier...

****, someone better have a LONG talk with O2 in the UK, Orange in France, T-Mobile in Germany, and Apple then... they've got a BIG MESS heading their way in a month!

Tell ya what tfg, before you start spouting the "corporate line" that Steve/Apple hands to you, why don't you try to do a bit of research yourself first, or hell, just stop and THINK before you start to regurgitate Apple's PR crap.

In case this is your first cellphone, lemme give ya a bit of a lesson:

First, GSM (the technology the iPhone uses) is ubiquitous across the planet, with the exception of the frequency range the modem uses... all other internals are Defined by STANDARDS. This means that there's no such thing as "designed for xyz network", once again, with the exception of the modem frequency (these frequencies are country based, and there are only 4 options).

Second, NO MANUFACTURER, that isn't directly tied to a Network Provider, is going to spend the R&D time and resources, let alone the tool and die setup costs, to Design and Manufacture a complicated device like a cell phone that's specific to only one Network. They design and build the phone, send out the specs to the various providers for feedback/review, then drop in the applicable modem card to support a particular network type. Finally, anything specific needed to work on a particular carrier is tweaked in Software.regardless of whether the phone can work on other networks, apple has an exclusivity agreement with at&t. in order to avoid a lawsuit from a huge corporation (at&t), apple must protect that exclusivity by whatever means necessary. once the exclusivity agreement runs out, its a different story.

Roger

10-03-2007, 03:00 AM

You're redirecting the argument. Boy your side loves to do that! We are trying to stay on topic yet you guys keep changing the subject. Though I do understand. It's quite common for people to use unorthodox methods when they start to lose their argument. :p

The subject isn't what Apple sold the U.S. iPhone to do. The subject is whether or not the iPhone is capable of doing the things Apple is trying to prevent now.

It is capable of doing the things that Apple is trying to prevent without damaging the phone*.
People have the legal right to make the changes they are making to their iPhones.
The question about whether or not Apple has the right to damage phones that have been modified has yet to be resolved in the courts.*The question about whether or not Apple is maliciously bricking unlocked phones has also yet to be discovered.and people do not have to update the phone software either. the phone works just as well at 1.0.2. apple warned people before the update. some stupid people didnt heed this warning bricking their phones. it is the users fault not the manufacturers.

SmartAlx

10-03-2007, 09:15 AM

Isn't unlocking illegal? If so then you would be wasting your time.Dude, where have you been? If you cant keep up, stay out of the argument. If you're so worried about wasting time, why'd you post this innane reply? You wasted your own time and everybody else's.

iMeth

10-03-2007, 09:18 AM

there are still idiots crying about their phones being bricked??? because they updated the 1.1.1 LMAO@j000:angry:

SmartAlx

10-03-2007, 09:27 AM

there are still idiots crying about their phones being bricked??? because they updated the 1.1.1 LMAO@j000:angry:No. Pay attention. Examine the details. This thread is on page 6. It's been going on since the beginning.

tzhourdeka

10-03-2007, 10:51 AM

Dude, where have you been? If you cant keep up, stay out of the argument. If you're so worried about wasting time, why'd you post this innane reply? You wasted your own time and everybody else's.i didn't want to argue about a phone.

Prelector

10-03-2007, 01:15 PM

and you clicked next at the "form contract" which stated your agreement with it. nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to update. the subsidy unlock can easily be obtained from at&t after 90 days of service. those who chose to update after being warned that using a 3rd party unlock could very well brick the phone deserve the $400 paperweight they now have. just my .02. its not like anyone was blindsided by this.

People REALLY need to research a bit before they start throwing out "facts"...

Clicking on "next" is agreement to the contract, it's NOT the same as being involved in the drafting of that contract. The courts have already ruled that in some cases, form contracts are not enforcable, even if agreed to by both parties, if both parties aren't able to have a say in it's DRAFTING. Meaning, if my only option is to agree or walk away, and I don't even have a chance to counteroffer, then the contract might not be valid.

And no, "the subsidy unlock can easily be obtained from at&t after 90 days of service" this is NOT true. ATT has already stated that they will not offer an unlock code for the iPhone, even after your 2yr contract is up (though this might change in the next 2 years). Regardless, 90 days have passed since the initial batches were purchased and activated; don't you think we'd have used the ATT unlock if there was one available?!

i do agree with what you said, but a class action suit will hold no water in court simply because all apple has to do is say that the unauthorized mods damaged the phone causing the failure during the firmware update. in the end it will be the users fault not the manufacturers. it would prove to be very difficult to substantiate the claim that apple maliciously damged phones.

This isn't how Civil court works... In Civil court, there is no "presumption of innocence". Each side has to prove their claims. If Apple says that the mods damaged the phone, then they have to PROVE IT also. If our side says that the upgrade damaged the phone, we have to prove it (though there's already quite a bit of proof on this part).

chris

10-03-2007, 01:21 PM

<--------Please let's keep on topic. Argue the point and not the person. Failure to do so could result in suspension of forum privileges. Thanks for your understanding.------------>

DRabbit

10-03-2007, 01:31 PM

This isn't how Civil court works... In Civil court, there is no "presumption of innocence". Each side has to prove their claims. If Apple says that the mods damaged the phone, then they have to PROVE IT also. If our side says that the upgrade damaged the phone, we have to prove it (though there's already quite a bit of proof on this part).

Well that's where it all goes sticky don't ya think? You can't SOLEY say Apple damaged the phone with it's update... the phone would have gone undamaged had it not been for the owner modding the software on the phone, which it specifically says in the EULA you're not allowed to do.

Whether the EULA stands up in court may be open for debate or not - I'm not a lawyer - but this isn't the only time an end user hits "I Agree" -- it also happens whenever there's a software update, which makes it much harder to claim ignorance. Could Apple also prove that 3rd party untrusted software could potentially cause damage to the phone? I bet they can. I've already read articles stating security issues, so it wouldn't be a far stretch for me to believe the hacking the phone is bad for it. I also bet Apple would have a good lawsuit themselves again the people writing mods and hacks since the EULA also states you're not allowed to reverse-engineers etc. and violate Apple's intellectual property rights.

You could argue every point bit by bit but ultimately it is not up to Apple to support 3rd party mods and hacks that are untrusted and unapproved. Each person that installed the update held their destiny in their own hands and could have decided NOT to do it to maintain their unlocks and mods. If Apple closes what it sees as a "hole" that was allowing this 3rd party stuff to begin with it could easily be argued that they had NO CHOICE but to do so, to protect their own technology, security and intellectual property. From a legal standpoint Apple MUST protect it's intellectual property in order for in to maintain it's IP rights.

Tinman

10-03-2007, 01:52 PM

And no, "the subsidy unlock can easily be obtained from at&t after 90 days of service" this is NOT true. ATT has already stated that they will not offer an unlock code for the iPhone, even after your 2yr contract is up (though this might change in the next 2 years). Regardless, 90 days have passed since the initial batches were purchased and activated; don't you think we'd have used the ATT unlock if there was one available?!
AT&T says they can't give it out because Apple won't give it to them:

"With images of unlocked iPhones dancing in my head, today I gave AT&T a call. I confirmed that I now had my iPhone account active & in good standing for 90 days (the normal threshold for permitted unlocking) and requested a subsidy unlock for overseas travel. They transfered me to the technical support department, where I chatted with support rep Michael G.

Michael told me that there were no unlock codes available for the iPhone due to the exclusive agreement between Apple and AT&T. This includes countries like the UK and Germany, where the iPhone would soon be on sale. "We simply do not have unlock codes for them," he confirmed. I would have to use International roaming.

He recommended using a cheap disposable phone instead. With my account over 90 days old and in good standing, I was entitled to unlock a phone -- even if not the iPhone. He provided an unlock code for my little Motorola disposable.

So where does that leave us? Michael suggested that customers send their complaints directly to the FCC (1-888-CALL-FCC). He thinks that after 1 year, the FCC will force AT&T and Apple to provide unlocks for their customers."

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/28/90-days-later/

--
Mike

Prelector

10-03-2007, 02:26 PM

AT&T says they can't give it out because Apple won't give it to them:

"With images of unlocked iPhones dancing in my head, today I gave AT&T a call. I confirmed that I now had my iPhone account active & in good standing for 90 days (the normal threshold for permitted unlocking) and requested a subsidy unlock for overseas travel. They transfered me to the technical support department, where I chatted with support rep Michael G.

Michael told me that there were no unlock codes available for the iPhone due to the exclusive agreement between Apple and AT&T. This includes countries like the UK and Germany, where the iPhone would soon be on sale. "We simply do not have unlock codes for them," he confirmed. I would have to use International roaming.

He recommended using a cheap disposable phone instead. With my account over 90 days old and in good standing, I was entitled to unlock a phone -- even if not the iPhone. He provided an unlock code for my little Motorola disposable.

So where does that leave us? Michael suggested that customers send their complaints directly to the FCC (1-888-CALL-FCC). He thinks that after 1 year, the FCC will force AT&T and Apple to provide unlocks for their customers."

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/28/90-days-later/

--
Mike

Oh Irony, thy name is iPhone... - paraphrased from The Bard

Apple says it's locking the iPhone to protect ATT; ATT says they can't unlock the iPhone because Apple won't let them.

Personally, I think I believe ATT on this one. ATT has an established policy to provide the code after 90 days, so they aren't opposed on principal. And ATT has the $175 cancellation fee to protect you dropping the contract. I'd have to guess this is Apple's heavy handed way of maintaining control, and possibly protecting their recurring revenue stream.

Prelector

10-03-2007, 02:41 PM

Well that's where it all goes sticky don't ya think? You can't SOLEY say Apple damaged the phone with it's update... the phone would have gone undamaged had it not been for the owner modding the software on the phone, which it specifically says in the EULA you're not allowed to do.

This is a false arguement... By extension then, you couldn't say I'm liable for damages in an accident I caused, since if you stayed home, the accident wouldn't have happened. Apple (assuming Intent, and the facts support this) made the OVERT act to "brick" locked devices, so yes, you can argue they are solely responsible.

Whether the EULA stands up in court may be open for debate or not - I'm not a lawyer - but this isn't the only time an end user hits "I Agree" -- it also happens whenever there's a software update, which makes it much harder to claim ignorance. Could Apple also prove that 3rd party untrusted software could potentially cause damage to the phone? I bet they can. I've already read articles stating security issues, so it wouldn't be a far stretch for me to believe the hacking the phone is bad for it. I also bet Apple would have a good lawsuit themselves again the people writing mods and hacks since the EULA also states you're not allowed to reverse-engineers etc. and violate Apple's intellectual property rights.

You could argue every point bit by bit but ultimately it is not up to Apple to support 3rd party mods and hacks that are untrusted and unapproved. Each person that installed the update held their destiny in their own hands and could have decided NOT to do it to maintain their unlocks and mods. If Apple closes what it sees as a "hole" that was allowing this 3rd party stuff to begin with it could easily be argued that they had NO CHOICE but to do so, to protect their own technology, security and intellectual property. From a legal standpoint Apple MUST protect it's intellectual property in order for in to maintain it's IP rights.

Ironically, it's this new security hole that's been discovered (the all apps as root thing) that SUPPORTS our claim! You could argue that we are forced to update to fix this security hole, and achieve the secure level of operation that was due us on the base OS.

And I wouldn't go down the "protect IP" route, that's rife with potholes and problems (and one of the reasons I switched arguements away from the "unlocking is legal" thing). Legally, Apple doesn't have to do ANYTHING to protect it's IP rights, other than claim them via copyright registration. There's nothing in copyright law that says I have to encrypt my IP. Finally, the biggest flaw I see in what Apple did: Technically, you agree to a bunch of Seperate EULAs, each one covering different technology in the iPhone. One of them covers the Phone portion, and a seperate one covers the iPod portion. This shows that Apple considers them Seperate entities within the iPhone. So, assuming that Apple WAS able to win and be able to relock, they would have a hard time justifying "bricking" the entire device, which also breaks the iPod functionality.

As I've said, this thing is a MESS, and virtually guarantees a lawsuit just to try and figure it all out. I will say that Apple really seems to have stepped in it on this one. I'm kinda surprised that their legal department allowed this update to go forward (unless I'm TOTALLY offbase on the law).

DRabbit

10-03-2007, 03:31 PM

This is a false arguement... By extension then, you couldn't say I'm liable for damages in an accident I caused, since if you stayed home, the accident wouldn't have happened. Apple (assuming Intent, and the facts support this) made the OVERT act to "brick" locked devices, so yes, you can argue they are solely responsible.

Bad analogy.

If you put aftermarket parts on your car and it causes your car to break down, do you think the car manufacturer is responsible? They aren't. They will also void your warranty.

Now you'll reply that if the manufacturer intentially makes your car break down...

First, you have no proof Apple INTENTIONALLY mucked up the unlocked or modded iPhones...

Second, lets say it was LIKELY that if you put an aftermarket product on your car, the next time you go for routine maintenance the car breaks down immediately following. The cause is a combination of the aftermarket part AND the maintenance (yes, I realize this is unlikely in the car world). Who do you think is responsible? Not the car manufacturer. They are not required to warranty anything but the stock car engine. They cannot anticipate what effect every possible aftermarket part will have your automobile. They can not even be assured you installed it correctly or that it didn't cause OTHER problems. This is why your warranty is voided when you go messing with your car by adding aftermarket parts to the engine.

Ironically, it's this new security hole that's been discovered (the all apps as root thing) that SUPPORTS our claim! You could argue that we are forced to update to fix this security hole, and achieve the secure level of operation that was due us on the base OS.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. You actually think Apple is obligated to provide you the update that closes the security hole AND allow your mods/hacks to keep working? All you are "entitled" to is the working update. You have NO entitlement what-so-ever that said update keeps you 3rd party apps/hacks/mods working. As a matter of fact, if you read the EULA you'll also see that you have no guarantee that even Apple's own software updates won't muck up your phone (though I'd imagine Apple would try to be helpful if your virgin phone got mucked up in a software update).

In addition, from what I've been reading, your ability to install 3rd party hacks and unlocking the sim are very separate... (which we knew)... but in the fact that some are claiming the new unlock will come relatively quickly... but 3rd party apps WILL NOT. 3rd party app install seems to be where Apple really locked it down.

And I wouldn't go down the "protect IP" route, that's rife with potholes and problems (and one of the reasons I switched arguements away from the "unlocking is legal" thing). Legally, Apple doesn't have to do ANYTHING to protect it's IP rights, other than claim them via copyright registration. There's nothing in copyright law that says I have to encrypt my IP.

IP Law does in fact put the burden on the IP owner to protect and enforce it's IP. How it protects it's IP isn't spelled out - whether it be through technology or the courts or a combination of the two. Since the EULA you agreed to (and every subsequent update) specifically states you aren't allowed to reverse engineer, etc. modify, etc. the iPhone software Apple has every right to make it's encryption stronger so that the people who already infringed on Apple's IP cannot do so any longer, I say it's completely within their right to do so. What, you want to argue that it's your right to violate the EULA and to hack into the phone?

Finally, the biggest flaw I see in what Apple did: Technically, you agree to a bunch of Seperate EULAs, each one covering different technology in the iPhone. One of them covers the Phone portion, and a seperate one covers the iPod portion. This shows that Apple considers them Seperate entities within the iPhone. So, assuming that Apple WAS able to win and be able to relock, they would have a hard time justifying "bricking" the entire device, which also breaks the iPod functionality.

The iPod portion is not covered separately... what is provided separately is an iTUNES portion. Different animal.

As I've said, this thing is a MESS, and virtually guarantees a lawsuit just to try and figure it all out. I will say that Apple really seems to have stepped in it on this one. I'm kinda surprised that their legal department allowed this update to go forward (unless I'm TOTALLY offbase on the law).

I doubt Apple's legal department is stupid. I'm sure they are fairly confident that what they have done is within their rights. Is it a mess? Sure is. But we disagree that it's as wide-spread a problem as some people seem to think, or that Apple "stepped into it" here. I think they are doing business the way they always have. They try to maintain very tight control over their hardware and software.

Futureconceptz1122

10-03-2007, 10:50 PM

Is it possible to file a lawsuit against apple for the recent update that bricked peoples iphones? In this country ( USA ) it is not illegal to unlock a cellphone. and for apple to make software to render the iphone locked again( and bricked)...I think that is illegal on there part. Plus we all shelled out hundreds of dollars behind this device...thats basicly ours to do with as we please. If we want to use it as a paper weight or an object to throw at people....thats our concern not theirs, we paid for it.
Now I understand that they dont want people to be messing around with their software, but to unleash the power of the iphone, "we, the user demand" more from the iphone, we demand to be free from apples constraints on the iphone. I want more....stocks and weather, safari ...is not enough for me... I want more.
SOMEONE NEEDS TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST APPLE.
Thats just my opinion.

i completely agree with you on this issue, Apple in no way should ever try and take advantage of people like this, People spend their hard earned dollars on apple products and we should have the option to do whatever we want with the phone..

what steve jobs is doing is wrong, we the iphone users try and advance the iphone by creating/developing new software to make the phone better, and in a sense making the phone better for APPLE and this is the thanx we get????

thank god i only put one app in my iphone b4 the update, when i called apple reps they told me the 4 worst words an iphoner could ever hear.> " your iphone is ToasT". i was ready to flip out on someone, but maintained composure and did a "restore" i was good again, i can only imagine the people that have phones as good as a paperweight, They must be pissed!!!!!!!

tfg

10-04-2007, 09:15 AM

Oh Really? ONLY AT&T huh, and it was designed and manufactured this way? No guarantee it will work on another network, and shouldn't work with any other carrier...

****, someone better have a LONG talk with O2 in the UK, Orange in France, T-Mobile in Germany, and Apple then... they've got a BIG MESS heading their way in a month!

Tell ya what tfg, before you start spouting the "corporate line" that Steve/Apple hands to you, why don't you try to do a bit of research yourself first, or hell, just stop and THINK before you start to regurgitate Apple's PR crap.

In case this is your first cellphone, lemme give ya a bit of a lesson:

First, GSM (the technology the iPhone uses) is ubiquitous across the planet, with the exception of the frequency range the modem uses... all other internals are Defined by STANDARDS. This means that there's no such thing as "designed for xyz network", once again, with the exception of the modem frequency (these frequencies are country based, and there are only 4 options).

Second, NO MANUFACTURER, that isn't directly tied to a Network Provider, is going to spend the R&D time and resources, let alone the tool and die setup costs, to Design and Manufacture a complicated device like a cell phone that's specific to only one Network. They design and build the phone, send out the specs to the various providers for feedback/review, then drop in the applicable modem card to support a particular network type. Finally, anything specific needed to work on a particular carrier is tweaked in Software.

Well sorry, AT&T in the US. If you don't want to sign with AT&T and you're in the US, then you're **** out of luck. Go get a different phone. It's been stated since the inception that you have to be on that carrier, period. There's nothing you can do if they keep updating the iphone to not work with other carriers in the US.

Prelector

10-04-2007, 12:19 PM

Bad analogy.

If you put aftermarket parts on your car and it causes your car to break down, do you think the car manufacturer is responsible? They aren't. They will also void your warranty.

Now you'll reply that if the manufacturer intentially makes your car break down...

First, you have no proof Apple INTENTIONALLY mucked up the unlocked or modded iPhones...

Second, lets say it was LIKELY that if you put an aftermarket product on your car, the next time you go for routine maintenance the car breaks down immediately following. The cause is a combination of the aftermarket part AND the maintenance (yes, I realize this is unlikely in the car world). Who do you think is responsible? Not the car manufacturer. They are not required to warranty anything but the stock car engine. They cannot anticipate what effect every possible aftermarket part will have your automobile. They can not even be assured you installed it correctly or that it didn't cause OTHER problems. This is why your warranty is voided when you go messing with your car by adding aftermarket parts to the engine.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. You actually think Apple is obligated to provide you the update that closes the security hole AND allow your mods/hacks to keep working? All you are "entitled" to is the working update. You have NO entitlement what-so-ever that said update keeps you 3rd party apps/hacks/mods working. As a matter of fact, if you read the EULA you'll also see that you have no guarantee that even Apple's own software updates won't muck up your phone (though I'd imagine Apple would try to be helpful if your virgin phone got mucked up in a software update).

In addition, from what I've been reading, your ability to install 3rd party hacks and unlocking the sim are very separate... (which we knew)... but in the fact that some are claiming the new unlock will come relatively quickly... but 3rd party apps WILL NOT. 3rd party app install seems to be where Apple really locked it down.

IP Law does in fact put the burden on the IP owner to protect and enforce it's IP. How it protects it's IP isn't spelled out - whether it be through technology or the courts or a combination of the two. Since the EULA you agreed to (and every subsequent update) specifically states you aren't allowed to reverse engineer, etc. modify, etc. the iPhone software Apple has every right to make it's encryption stronger so that the people who already infringed on Apple's IP cannot do so any longer, I say it's completely within their right to do so. What, you want to argue that it's your right to violate the EULA and to hack into the phone?

The iPod portion is not covered separately... what is provided separately is an iTUNES portion. Different animal.

I doubt Apple's legal department is stupid. I'm sure they are fairly confident that what they have done is within their rights. Is it a mess? Sure is. But we disagree that it's as wide-spread a problem as some people seem to think, or that Apple "stepped into it" here. I think they are doing business the way they always have. They try to maintain very tight control over their hardware and software.

Yea... I'm done with this mess.

Apple obviously hasn't done anything wrong; it's customers are idiots for exercising their legal right to unlock; Apple has every right to screw any customer that they care to, as long as Apples says it's OK.

If you can't see anything wrong with what Apple did, or how they handled this situation, then I'm obviously not going to influence you in any way.

If anyone else wishes clarification on any of my points, I'm happy to help them out.

Henry Woodward

10-04-2007, 07:57 PM

??

-Henry

chris

10-04-2007, 08:10 PM

Henry Woodward

10-04-2007, 08:42 PM

Henry-
I responded to you via PM. You have all of 14 posts and started what many would perceive as a "trolling post (http://www.everythingiphone.com/forum/general-discussion/the-real-reason-to-sue-apple-in-class-action-13633.html)". You even started your post with "Don't flame me". You then proceeded to report two members and complained of personal attacks. This is normal procedure here at EIP. If a thread degenerates into a litany of personal attacks, then it often gets closed. In some cases, members are suspended.

Stepping into this topic and questioning my methods of moderation will not win you any points. I'd ask that you review our forum policy (http://www.everythingiphone.com/forum/iphone/everything-iphone-forum-policy-6737.html).

-Chris

All I wanted to do was start a thread on a real issue. We know other sites on the internet have discussed wether the Iphone is a smarthphone as a real issue. If you want to do your job as moderator correctly then suspend the people that toss insults. Not the people that inspire thought. You don't gain any points with me. BTW I read the forum policy.

Roger

10-10-2007, 08:46 AM

The only reason for anyone to need an unlocked phone in my eyes is for international travel to either avoid the ridiculous international roaming fees or to avoid the cost of a new phone while out of town to avoid the same fees. For this reason, an unlock should be provided, but only under those circumstances. If there was no exclusivity agreement between apple and at&t i might feel different but this is not the case (at least for the time being). If you are in the United States where at&t provides coverage, you have no need for an unlocked phone, period. Then again, being that the only other US option is T-Mobile, i would wonder why anyone in the US would want an unlocked phone anyway. In my area, T-Mobile is horrible but that is a totally different discussion. Aside from that, for those of you who wish to sue apple for what happened with unlocked phones after the update, i wish you lots of luck in proving that the unlock software didnt do damage to the phone causing the failure during the update. For those of you who wish to sue apple because of the inability to run third party apps, i again wish you luck. The fact that you didnt read the EULA and just clicked "I Agree" is again, not apples problem. It is your legal right to do as you please to hardware you purchased, but it is apples right to close up the hole. It is a cat and mouse game, and this is how it will always be.....just look up the Sony PSP if you want to see another piece of hardware going through the same thing. Someone finds a hole that allows homebrew and sony follows right behind them with a software update that closes the hole. the only difference is rather than crying about how evil the manufacturer is for wanting to secure their intellectual property, they just deal until the next hole is found, and the process starts all over again. if 3rd party software is so important to you, pick up a smartphone or pocket pc where there is support and an sdk available. if that option is not for you then just sit and wait for the next security hole to be found. just my .02

Maahu

10-11-2007, 12:54 PM

Yea... I'm done with this mess.

Apple obviously hasn't done anything wrong; it's customers are idiots for exercising their legal right to unlock; Apple has every right to screw any customer that they care to, as long as Apples says it's OK.

If you can't see anything wrong with what Apple did, or how they handled this situation, then I'm obviously not going to influence you in any way.

If anyone else wishes clarification on any of my points, I'm happy to help them out.

Good article in today's NY Times about this: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/lawyer-sues-over-iphones-little-white-list/

If the white list is indeed true, then there's no way Apple did this inadvertantly. I like the analogy of Sony selling you a TV set and then breaking into your house and wiping out all Fox programs.

iPhone8801

10-11-2007, 03:41 PM

Good article in today's NY Times about this: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/lawyer-sues-over-iphones-little-white-list/

If the white list is indeed true, then there's no way Apple did this inadvertantly. I like the analogy of Sony selling you a TV set and then breaking into your house and wiping out all Fox programs.

Agreed bro:2cool:

SmartAlx

10-12-2007, 06:10 AM

Roger

10-12-2007, 11:26 AM

Roger, Im not going to quote youvr post because its so long and clipping it myself would take waassay too long on this "wonderful" device wohout copy/paste, so I'll just say these things.

I have every right to unlock my phone in America. #1 its legal. #2 I don't like being dictated to, not by Apple, and CERTAINLY not by self righteous mac fanboys. I don't necessarily mean that you are a self righteous mac fanboy, but there are Manu here who are saying the same thing as you.

You said that T mobile is the only option so in the US people don't need an unlocked PHONE not iPhone. You said phone, as if T mobile shouldn't be an option for ANYBODY, including people without an iPhone. Well ive got news for you, thod is still America, home if thr free market wconomy. Tmobile is not the only other choice. Do you not have those commercials where these 4 dweeby cellohone fake mascots try to pick on this other mascot for I think its Altell? In my area there are I think 5 GSM providers. At least 4. One of them a specialty local provider. There are no doubt MANY MANY local cellphone prpviders across the nation.

So be careful about making assumptions.

The lawsuits are all about the as you say cat and moisecgame. If we win a lawsuit, then we mice win, FOREVER, for EVERY device. Sure they still need to close up SECURITY issues, but if adding 3rd party apps (on all debices , not judt the iphone) doesnt pose a security risk or shed light on a security hole, yhen manufacturers should leave it alone. A judgment in out favor would give us teeth to make sure they do leave it alone.

I seem to recskll that Sony gave up with the PSP. Didnt the hackers win there?i was talking major carriers.....the primary carriers in the US are at&t, t-mobile, verizon, and sprint. if you want to give your business to a hole in the wall local carrier that is your choice. however that is not a choice i would make hence making 2 clear gsm choices in the US for me. one of which has awful coverage in my area. my view on the subject is, if you want an iphone and dont want at&t, well tough luck. if apple wants to limit themselves in such a way, so be it. there are many other choices for a gsm phone that are equally as capable as the iphone. maybe my views are skewed, but a corporation should have the right to decide who their product can be serviced by. as far as the psp, sony has not abandned the effort. firmware 3.71 was released recently that fixed "secrity vulnerabilites". translation: sony fixed the security hole that was allowing homebrew to execute. most of their updates are security updaes that add little to no new features. on a side note, 3.71 was cracked recently and all homebrew can now execute with the midified firmware. and so the process starts all over......

Return_of_the_Mac

10-12-2007, 07:31 PM

I'm not a fan of Apple bricking phones, but at the same time when the iphone was released, it was made clear that you would have to go through AT&T for service and that a 2 year contract would have to accompany it, it was also made clear that prior to the update, that modified phones might not work; so I don't see why anyone would want to make such a big deal over this when everything was made clear from the start. I was already under contract with AT&T, so the iphone was a good choice for me to buy.

I'm personally for being able to modify your phone, since its your own property, but at the same time, should Apple be responsible if something goes wrong, while you modify your phone? I think Apple is just looking out for themselves, which is what a lot of businesses do. Businesses are out to make money and protect their product and Apple made everything they were doing public knowledge. I did my research before buying an iphone and what it could and could not do and I bought it based on what it could do, not based on what a 3rd party application could make it do, I bought it based on being locked to AT&T for service for 2 more years. These are all things, we all knew about, nothing was kept secret from us and we even had the restore button to bring out device back to default status.

I'm against having to buy ringtones through itunes, I think that's probably the main thing that has bugged me about the iphone. I know its an issue with record companies, but I still hate that.