“Don’t say you weren’t warned. After cautioning customers earlier this week that unlocked iPhones may be disabled when installing future Apple software updates, the company on Thursday made good on its warning,” Jim Dalrymple reports for Macworld.
“Two iPhones in the Macworld offices that had the SIM hacks applied to them were disabled after installing iPhone Update 1.1.1,” Dalrymple reports.
According to Dalrymple, users “could not navigate through the iPhone’s menu” and “the ‘Slide for Emergency’ slider is the only thing available after installing the update. This allows customers to make emergency calls only.”
More in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “NeverFade” for the heads up.]
As I stated, I am NOT going to buy an iPhone so if it is a favor to you then so be it. I agree with the concept of which you speak. My problem is that they didn’t do as you say. I Do think they could have sold an unlocked phone and been VERY successful. By creating a phone that works with every carrier they could have affected every carrier. For example, if I decided I wanted one I could just use it with my service plan I already have. Now how does Verizon and Sprint etc. compete with iPhone. They subsidize even more. And what happens in two years with this upgradeable non throw away device when the service contract expires and you don’t want to stay with AT&T;. Will apple allow you, the person who shelled out several hundred dollars to take it to another carrier. So far it looks like the answer is NO. So this device does becomes an expensive throw away device (as far as cell service) if you won’t stick with AT&T;. At least the RAZR you mentioned is subsidized and you won’t be out so much $$$. If Apple really wanted to shake up the cellular market they could have continued to sell it for $600 and let the buyer use it where ever the hell they wanted. So, my statement stands. They want to lock you to AT&T;then it shouldn’t be so damned expensive even after the price drop.
Just when my stock looked like it was taking off…
That cinches it, I’m not buying an iPhone (wasn’t going to anyway, just being dramatic).
I’m wondering how liable they will be if its shown this release was designed to brick those phones. It is not illegal to unlock phones and it is illegal to destroy someones property on purpose.
Apple is really becoming a major corporate asshole.
come one hackers, back to work! Better to be a pirate than to be a navy
$(r3w apple,
No, you’re wrong. Here’s why: Nokia, the dominant handset maker, previously created a really nice phone and has tried to sell it unlocked outside of any carrier. Result: They haven’t change anything, and are still groveling at the feet of the carriers regarding what capabilities are in phones. Even big Nokia, with its long-standing relationships with carriers, has had no influence over the cellular data rates, or the use of wifi, or the walled garden. Activation is still with the carrier. No carrier wants to help them with distribution of the phone.
Because of Apple’s entry into the market, Nokia is going to keep trying by introducing Ovi as a way to break the carriers’ walled gardens and get close to the customer, but most mobile industry observers are saying it’s going to be really tough for them to straddle the line.
As for subsidies, Daniel Eran at RoughlyDrafted.com has already shown how the total price you pay – phone plus 2-year service contract with unlimited data – is still less for iPhone/att than for other smartphones+carrier’s plans. Which goes to show how easy it is for subsidies to be used to fool the consumer, and destroy the handset’s brand (see Carl Howe at Blackfriarsinc.com/blog). It doesn’t matter that other carriers might be willing to subsidize more, Apple doesn’t just want a one-time payment from the carrier for a phone, they want a revenue stream and all the other changes.
As of now, we don’t know what agreement Apple has with AT&T;, and whether there are any service or performance clauses in it. So what happens after 2 years is unknown. But I’m sure the iPhone will still sell pretty well at eBay after 2 years, and the $16.67 a month that the iPhone cost will have been worth it.
Ha Ha. Apple have publicly screwed themselves again. How many times is that in the last 60 days?
So what happens when Apple decides to “brick” your computer because you’ve added Handbrake or Mac The Ripper or Pacifist? Maybe, the new Software Update in Leopard will update all your software, not just Apple’s and what if it scans for all the software and content that The Machine thinks you shouldn’t have? Isn’t that what just occurred?
You Eloi will eventually learn.
But didn’t Apple send the disarming fatboy to tell the masses that Apple wouldn’t disable iPhones intentionally? What’d they just do?
MDN says they “disabled as promised”. Roundboy said they wouldn’t do disable phones intentionally. Somebody’s lying.
“Ha Ha. Apple have publicly screwed themselves again. How many times is that in the last 60 days?”
really?
if you think john q public gives a damn about hacked (“hackers do things to phones?” he says “are they terrorists?”) iPhones, you are clueless. the typical iPhone user and target for Apple to sell to doesn’t know, and doesn’t care.
they just want to know when they can get out of their contracts so they can get in line to buy one.
what is this, slashdot? do you really think the average person even knows this is happening? you are dreaming….
sorry to point out to “hotinplaya”, yes – you ARE dumber than a clod of dirt. Thanks for clearing that point for all of the readers.
@Curious,
When Apple introduced the iPhone, they made clear what you could do with it both by saying so and by putting it in writing. They’ve never said any such thing about the Mac. By the way, has your curiosity even led you to determine the difference between an item that is a general-purpose computer, and one that is not?
Has it led you to determine the meaning of “intentionally”?
Man, some people on this site are just so dense.
@clod of dirt
What did I say, that makes me dumber than a clod of dirt?
I simply stated
I love Apple products
I wanted an iPhone
They are not available in Mexico, so ATT is not a choice, if the iPhone was available here, I would gladly sign up with one of the two GSM providers
I purchased one in the States
I had it unlocked
I will not do the update , until the SIMM FREE guys figure it out
I did so at my own risk,
I am willing to play the cat and mouse game (quote from Jobs)
maybe, my english was not correct, lets see you make a post in spanish
usted pedazo de mierda
EVERYONE WARNED YOU!!!! WHY DIDN’T YOU LISTEN?
To all you suckers out there, I’m very sorry for your loss. I’m sure the Dev Team Will come up with something soon… but frankly, my sympathy is overwhelmed by my gloating.
You see, I didn’t perform the 1.1.1. FW update and I am happy to report that my iPhone is functioning very well. Everyone told you that updating your Unlocked iPhone was akin to putting your thumb up a rottweiler’s bum. Were you surprised when you got bit?
So to recap….
Apple warned you.
Steve Jobs warned you.
The Dev Team warned you.
The disclaimer when you bought the iPhone warned you.
Sympathy Zero, Gloating 10!
Sent from my iPhone
PS.
(Thought I would post this pre-emptive defensive-strike before all you suckers bashed me)
I am using the iPhone in Canada, with Rogers. Rogers in the only GSM carrier in Canada capable of handling iPhone. Rogers is also rumored to be in talks with Apple as “the” carrier. When iPhone does come to Canada I will update/relock/whatever… and then I will sit by the campfire and reminisce over the time that thousands of suckers locked their phones and sent the iPhone community into a general panic. Then I will laugh and laugh and maybe even take pictures on my iPhone and post them here.
May the Dev Team save your soul… or at the very least, your iPhone.
Subsidized?! Do you honestly believe that it is something free and that you do not have to pay it to your telephone company? Tell me immediatly the name of the company that throws money to the customer like that…
There is no such a thing as a free lunch. You will end up paying it sooner or later.
Idiots really think that they get free phones when they sign a contract… Yeesshh…
Be American and speak Spanish.
“Be American and speak Spanish.”
Be Finnish and switch sides all the time. I’d be embarrassed to even admit I was from Finland. Wouldn’t you be better off to pretend you were from some other Scandinavian country?
“what is this, slashdot? do you really think the average person even knows this is happening? “
The average customer will read media headlines and watch TV news segments which says Apple disables iPhones when customers do things with them that Apple doesn’t like.
Apple’s point in doing this is to try to stop people unlocking iPhones or loading 3rd party apps on them so they’re actively spreading the FUD as widely as they can.
If people live in a cave with no external media contact they might not hear about this.
Well, I’m glad to see there seem to be a lot of people who aren’t whiners commenting on this. I’ve reached a point in my life (otherwise known as ‘getting old’) where I don’t have to try and hack my way through every product I own.
I do get why others do it though. It’s fun to experiment with technology. I think the kind of hacking we were seeing on the iPhone is the kind that inspires people to learn and take good risks that lead to innovation…not the kind that bring down whole networks or rip off people. There is a difference and Apple should note that.
So, while I agree with those who say everyone was warned, I also hope Apple makes it easy to reverse the ‘ibrick’ process either via a software restore or a visit to an Apple retail store.
Reading comments from loyal Apple users in forums always amazes me. What a bunch of sheep you are. They sell you music and force you to use one service; they sell you a phone and force you to use one service; and you praise them for it, and defend Apple against people who point out that this is in fact more monopolistic behaviour than Microsoft exhibit. The only difference is that Apple doesn’t have the market share — and lord help us if they did: Apple would be MUCH worse than Redmond in terms of monopolistic practices — and is, in any market in which they have control.
And yet all you people just bend over and grab your ankles and wait for Steve to come get you again.
Fortunately, here in Europe, we seem to be in the process of cooking Apple’s goose. Add in Amazon’s entry into the music market, and you’ve got a less than rosy future for Apple.
What makes people think that Apple is obligated to program around half-arsed hacks? Simply maintianing or improving their own code is enough to break the fragile hacks.
As I see it, Apple isn’t relocking or bricking unlocked iPhones on purpose, its that the hacks are not compatible at the code level with the changes Apple is making.
Apple isn’t required to make sure their code works with code modified by a third party. I don’t understand why people are getting pissy and claiming monopolistic actions by Apple when the exact same thing will happen if you have hacked the internals of OS X — it’s very possible an update could break it in a very bad way.
@ mark… forced to use one music service? Amazon works fine with the iPod, thanks. Troll?
This is such an elegant, gorgeous, solution when you look at it as that – a solution to a problem. Apple is relying on its ability to deliver exclusive access to the Apple brand – the hallmark of excellence in design – to attract a very lucrative, ground-breaking deal from a carrier in every country worldwide. Apple was, of course, confident that they could deliver exclusivity. And I will bet that the contracts signed by the carriers have big damages clauses if Apple is unable to deliver on the exclusivity promise.
Apple were certain that they could. They are being extraordinarily open about it. They intend TO DELIVER THE PRODUCT OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS which means that the purchaser of an iPhone is buying a promise of 2 years of continual improvement in functionality, reliability, performance etc.
They have installed all the hacks. They know what changes are required in the Mac O/S on the iPhone to disable the hacks. The old hacks won’t work – new ones will be needed. But the life of a hack will always be very short. A waste of time for the hackers in fact. A couple of weeks of unlocked iPhone use and then weeks of nonuse until a new hack can be developed and implemented, for the couple of weeks it takes Apple to change the code to eliminate it.
Some updates will include new features. Sexy new features which no iPhone owner will want to be without. Anyone who has turned off updates will miss out on these features. They will have v1 of a product which will be delivered over 2 years, remember…
And, as someone else pointed out, it will not work with iTunes after a while. And, hey, could Apple have inserted a time bomb in the code – which requires continual updates to stop it closing down the iPhone. Perhaps it will display a message:
software update required – connect to iTunes within 21 days.
software update required – connect to iTunes within 20 days.
software update required – connect to iTunes within 19 days.
software update required – connect to iTunes within 18 days.
…
The key here is the delivery over two years. Apple can make hacking the iPhone a complete waste of time. The hackers will give up after a few cycles…
Apple have engineered a very elegant, legitimate, ethical solution to those who would set out to undermine the worth of the Apple trademark.
The value of Apple is enormous. If everyone has Apple then having Apple means nothing.
Therefore to HAVE the value of Apple, means to have EXCLUSIVITY
Apple has earned the right to charge a premium for access to its brand. Apple stands for all that is good. Good design. Good marketing. Good advertising. Good everything really. We all know AT&T;aren’t perfect, but I’m sure Apple thought of that too…
I wonder if the Apple/carrier contract includes stiff penalties for underperformance in key sectors, like coverage, uptime, dropout rate. I should imagine Apple will have insisted on an “Apple” quality service for any carrier expecting to have exclusive access to the Apple brand.
EXPECT AT&T;’s SERVICE TO IMPROVE…
@ mark
Apple succeeds because it LIMITS customer choice. That corporate philosophy doesn’t make ALL customer happy, but overall, limiting customer choice improves customer satisfaction. That’s why Apple limits the number of Mac and iPods models.
A customer walks into an Apple Store, and without much knowledge and assistance, he or she can pick the right model to buy. There is less anxiety about making the wrong choice because the decision is an easy one. If there is too much choice (an confusion), the customer will often choose not to make a decision, which means an unhappy customer and a lost sale. And after buying the Mac or iPod, there is less chance of buyer’s remorse from thinking they made the wrong choice. We are talking about the typical non-techy non-fanboy customer here (the people who make up most of Apple’s current customer base), not Linux guru or the guy who reads MDN every day and can name all the cats used to designate the Mac OS X releases.
The iPhone is the same way. For every market, there is (and will be) one wireless service provider. Apple maintains control of the user experience and enforces exclusivity. In exchange, Apple receives royalty payments from the wireless service providers. That’s the way it works. For most of Apple’s customers, that’s perfectly fine because they just want the iPhone to work and be cool. It’s Apple’s philosophy of limiting customer choice to increase customer satisfaction that make it all possible.
Apple cannot employ “monopolistic behaviour ” because it does not have a monopoly. The only monopoly that Apple appears to have these days is a monopoly on “coolness.”
There are technical differences that are important to the full operation of the iPhone system. The carrier has to modify their network to utilize the iPhone features that DIFFERENTIATE this phone from others.
So they have to have partnership agreements… Because Apple wants the iPhone to function differently from other phones.
How the hell is this hard ti understand???
That really cool random access to voicemail feature is dependent upon carrier mods. Unlocked phones would have less features. Apple doesn’t want that.
Is that greedy??? No, dear grade school economists… Apple prides itself in a complete and seamless experience.
If they sold their stuff to just anybody under any circumstances, they couldn’t produce the user experience they want to.
This user experience is what differentiates the iPhone from other mobiles.
You idiots didn’t think that the iPhone was just all skin deep eye candy did you????
Idiots
@$(r32 apple,
Less profit for apple if apple went your WAY since no profit from the carriers. How would that shake up the cellular market if apple just agree with their model. Apple changing the cellular business model and making profit.
After two-years…. the consumer doesn’t like AT&T;… the only other carrier would be T-mobile which aren’t very good as a whole.
As for the RAZR…. it is cheap material…..you get what you paid for. when the RAZR came out… it was high price for what functionalities… it had.