“Apple is clearly in a war with hackers over the iPhone and its most loyal fans could take a few hits,” Larry Dignan blgos for ZDNet. “Today’s angst over iPhones becoming iBricks because they were modified is really just the beginning. There are a few reports of non-hacked iPhones going dark following Apple’s latest firmware update.”
MacDailyNews Take: Why is there any “angst” at all for modded iPhones becoming iBricks when Apple warned users ahead of time (and during the update process)? Is it logical to expect any company to support unsupported hacks? Of course, not.
Dignan continues, “The iPhone update is just the latest example. Consider the following moving parts:”
• Apple cut the price of the premium iPhone by $200 just weeks after die-hards waited in line to pay $599 for it. Steve Jobs met these early adopters half way and gave them a $100 store credit. Where’s the other $100? If Steve really cared about you perhaps Apple would have made you better than whole, say a $250 credit.
MacDailyNews Take: Some portion of 0.33% of the U.S was upset that they paid the price on the box and then it changed. The other 99.67% of the U.S. population only sees a much better price. How many other companies offer $100 store credits when they change prices. Take your time, we’ll wait…
• The iPhone sticks you with one carrier–AT&T–that few people want. Why? Apple got the best deal from AT&T. We aren’t privy to the math behind the AT&T and Apple deal, but we do know none of these hacks to unlock the iPhone would be necessary if we had carrier choice. What’s the cost differential between adding a few carriers to the iPhone and wasting time developing software to outflank hackers?
MacDailyNews Take: Interesting question. However, assuming that Apple didn’t use Excel to do the math, one would tend to believe that the differential was great enough to have to sit through half-witted online petitions calling for Apple to change their product and nix their business deals, the fulminations of so-called tech reporters, etc. This is the way Apple has chosen to market the product they developed. AT&T in the U.S. is currently part of the product’s specs. If you don’t like it, there are other (lesser) so-called “smartphones.” It is not an unalienable right that everyone has an iPhone. If you want to deal with what unlocking the iPhone entails, then more power to you. But you shouldn’t complain when unsupported mods go unsupported.
• Apple has the best tech support in the business and could put it at risk over the iPhone. According to Consumer Reports June 2007 rankings Apple had a reader score of 81 out of a possible 100 when servicing desktops and laptops. On laptops the next best score was Lenovo’s 66 and Dell’s 60. One theory behind Apple’s score: Apple owners are an elite–some would say elitist–club. These folks will get whatever Apple pumps out of the product pipeline. Consumer Reports bases its scores on reader surveys. In these surveys perception matters. With the iPhone Apple is going mass market scores for Apple are only going to decline based on the laws of large numbers.
MacDailyNews Take: Another, more logical theory: Apple’s products are more reliable than other companies and Apple offers better tech support than other companies. Radical ideas, we know.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The more customers a company gets, the more complaints it will receive, as the percentage of “unsatisfied” customers is likely to remain constant despite growth. Apple should do whatever they can to improve support, quality, and their business decisions as they grow in order to protect their good reputation. Apple is not without fault – and can do better with some things – but the worries presented by Digan strike us as more than a bit overwrought.
It took four tries and two computers to get the firmware on my non-hacked iPod Touch updated this morning. Because of that, I am about to leave for lunch with a minus my music library. IMHO, at the very least, Steve Jobs owes me a personal apology.
Seriously, though, next time a firmware update comes out, I am not if I dare risk it again.
I’m in-Dignan-t. I believe he’s full of FUD.
MW – answer. that’s my answer.
This whole discussion is misguided.
Apple is NOT infallible, and one of the reasons I don’t look at MDN as other than slightly elevate fanboys is because they don’t look at any objections critically, they just attack like junkyard pit bulls.
Fact is the REAL discussion is how much ATT sux, becaus it’s enough to keep the admittedly very good iPhone numbers lower than they really should be, and would be were it not for the carrier being locked to ATT.
So the REAL culprit here is ATT, PERIOD. All talk about hacks etc has to include that as the root problem.
I don’t think people realize how many people are hacking the phones. In class right now there are three of us. In my dorm, there are all but one of the seven or so people who have iPhones are hacked to work with T-Mobile. Why? Because AT&T;’s prices suck, and we can’t simply Switch services. It’s not Apple’s fault when our hacks break, but they don’t need to deliberately break them. Right? This current update to the iPhone is a direct attack on those hacks.
An iPhone is like a spouse. If it’s not what you want don’t buy it. If she’s not the one you want (as she is) don’t marry her. You can’t change anyone, unless they want to change. You can’t hack her, just hicky her.
An iPhone is like a spouse. If you don’t like the way they are, don’t bother. You can’t re-program anyone. They’ll change if they want to. The iPhone will change over time, (if S.J. wants them to).
“This current update to the iPhone is a direct attack on those hacks.”
No, it’s an indirect attack. The direct attack was an update providing several security and feature enhancements.
Apple has a contract with AT&T;. You don’t like it. We get it.
Now go look up the phrase, “at your own risk.”
We’ll wait.
You brain-dead Macolytes make me sick. If your ran into SJ himself in an elevator and he told you to bend over and drop trau you would do it.
IT IS LEGAL FOR YOU TO UNLOCK A CELL PHONE IN THE UNITED STATES. APPLE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DISABLE YOUR PHONE BECAUSE YOU AVAIL YOURSELF OF YOUR RIGHT TO UNLOCK IT.
That’s it – there is no other part of this discussion that is relevant. Apple ‘warning’ us ahead of time is of no consequence. If Toyota warned you that they were going to disable the Prius Hybrid they sold you, just because you managed to unlock the feature that allows you to charge it from an outlet (yes, it has that capability), they would still be guilty in the eyes of the law. You lemmings DO have rights, regardless of what some celebrity CEO tells you!!
jbella asks: “This whole “Apple should let me use the carrier of my choice” thing is kinda silly. Especially here in america where there are only 2 choices, AT&T;and T-mobile. T-mobile has a much smaller and older network. Why would anyone have such a strong attachment to T-mobile?”
Why should anyone have to justify their choice of carrier to you? Or to Apple? Or to anyone? But just for the sake of it, I’ll tell you that T-Mobile has better/cheaper pricing plans than AT&T;. Is saving money for the exact same service rational enough for you? I mean, that IS what Free Market Economics is supposed to be all about. Idiot.
But Disillusioned gives the best reason of all IMO:
“I have a recording of my grandmother’s voice saying, “Boy, answer that damn phone!” … It was my ringtone … I’m not stealing [anything] … I just liked Lucy’s voice on my phone. My $600 phone. Or is it my phone? Maybe I didn’t read the docs properly. Apparently Apple still OWNS my phone and will direct what I do with it.”
Exactly.
The rest of you really need to get a clue.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool mad” style=”border:0;” />
MDN Magic Word = reaction
“The reaction of the majority on here is totally retarded”
I argue that Apple need to improve and develop iPhone WITHOUT worrying about unsupported hacks.
Apple has learnt from the mistakes of Microsoft.
And I look forward to a developing iPhone, not a stagnating one.
What a load of unmitigated garbage. Apple’s most loyal fans are not butchering their iPhone insides. And the people writing hacks and cracks in many cases are looking to make money off of the iPhone.
Apple needs to show no loyalty to people intentionally breaking it’s products. And those people number in the dozens. They are not some kind of overwhelming force that will punish Apple for the crime of (gasp) maintaining it’s user experience and updating it’s products regularly.
Apparently George Ou is on vacation at ZDNet, so we have s standin?
I’m surprised MDN isn’t pounding on this much harder; IMHO, this is hit trolling and flat out misrepresentation.
1. First, Apple isn’t at war with anybody altho they clearly are intent on shaking up the cellular business model, specifically getting rid of horribly designed phone user interfaces, carriers controlling everything (including phone hardware), carrier handset subsidies and grossly ridiculous data plan pricing. But they’re using the cellular business to do that – not much of a war. They’re holding back on VOIP, for now, but that is coming.
Note that this will be the second big, recent shakeup Apple has taken (music was the first), so DO expect major, game changing changes..
As far as hackers are concerned, Apple views them as an ally, but one they can’t embrace directly, at this time, due to the carriers (VOIP will appear here first, by the way). How else could one interpret the “we will neither help nor hinder 3rd party iPhone folks” remark recently? Apple wants 3rd party apps, but this is all it can say/do now.
Personally, I expect a native iPhone SDK soon (possibly Macworld 08, else WWDC 08), with at least Apple distribution available – this will be a major revenue source for Apple, by the way.
As far as unlocking is concerned, Apple hasn’t distinguished between unlocking and 3rd party apps, and there is no reason to expect it would – this simply makes the iPhone more attractive, encourages innovation without Apple doing anything (but Apple loses the carrier kickback).
Apple obviously tried the iPhone update on unlocked phones, found it broke the unlock (not surprisingly), AND THEN WARNED DEVELOPERS, albeit indirectly by warning customers. This is some war, all right… Apple is obviously going to do a full restore of the phone after an upgrade, so it I don’t know how anybody could have expected anything else but a relocked phone. Sure, its needs a not-yet-available hack to get back to the original state (which is, actually a bit surprising – it would be nice to simply have to re-unlock and re-install).
2. And all the phones still work, just not fully – no iBricks I’ve heard of. Altho I have trouble believing that (short of experimenters) anybody would be foolish enough to try and upgrade a locked phone without restoring it first.
(wonder why Macworld didn’t try that – this is the big test)
3. And Apple is “being a bully” with the media monopolies? Hello? Apple said “enough” to the MiddleBronfman and this is being a bully??!! I thought that was standing up to a bully, one that is abusing the population.
Under this bully definition, the police are bullies with lawbreakers – I hear they even restrain their freedom of movement by putting them in locked rooms with bars on them…
1. Anyone who hacks a piece of hardware or software does so at their own risk.
2. If Apple wants to, it can take whatever measures against hardware and software hacks that it wants to.
3. The fact that these hacks exist and are, in fact, highly sought after and popular indicates that they provide features that are valued by Apple’s customers.
4. Faced with this desire on the part of its customers, Apple has essentially three choices: (a) actively support their customers’ desires and the steps that they take to realize them (in other words, embrace the hacks), (b) be neutral about their customers’ desires and the steps that they take to realize them (in other words, don’t endorse but don’t break the hacks), or (c) actively work to thwart their customers’ desires and the steps that they take to realize them (in other words, deliberately break the hacks and/or hacked phones).
5. In this instance, and atypically for Apple, IMO, they have chosen route (c) and are actively working to thwart their customers’ desires and the steps that they take to realize them.
7. The RIAA has taught us what the results are, both economic and in terms of public relations when a company choses to adopt a business model in which they actively work to thwart their customers’ desires and the steps that they take to realize them.
8. Is this really a business model that Apple should emulate?
I’m an Apple fanboy; have been for many years, and probably (hopefull?) will be for awhile. But some of Steve’s moves of late strike me as a little… douche-y. The iMovie down-grade, the lack of a developer program for the iPhone, the inflexibility about iTunes pricing… Steve seems to be a better underdog than top dog. As soon as he gets on top, it’s like he needs to control everyone and everything. Why not let the market decide fair pricing for NBC’s iTunes shows?
There’s a metastory here that I haven’t heard mentioned at all yet, but was touched on here:
The idea that everyone feels entitled to have an iPhone. I think it says something really significant that is product has innumerable folks talking as if getting the iPhone in their country, for their carrier, on their own timetable, to their own spec is some kind of basic necessity. That so many people can’t accept the basic terms of service but still feel such a strong pull to the product is a strong indication of just how gamechanging it is. Different handsets have always been available only through particular carriers or under certain service conditions… even exclusivity is not that unusual. Until now, though, I’ve never seen anyone react with more than a shrug. Most of us have at one time or another been dissapointed that our carrier doesn’t play with X hardware or support Y feature, but we’ve just taken it in stride as the way this business works. That is, we did until something came along that’s so dang good that it feels like injustice to be denied it for any reason. Until the iPhone.
I think some people are completely ignorant of how businesses actually work. Just as Apple had to compromise in it’s deals with the music labels (DRM, and fuck all those idiots who think DRM is Apple’s idea) Apple absolutely for a fact had to have a partner to give the iPhone it’s start. If you think Apple could have effectively marketed the iPhone everyone and their dog (which would leave them absolutely no control over the terms and conditions) you simply do not understand Apple. It’s that simple.
And does anyone realise that by the mere fact that Apple’s updates have disabled the iPhone in certain circumstances that, for a fact, Apple HAS won this war? Logic. Tech writing is easier without it.
Couple of points:
Most “locked” phones are sold at a discount ONLY when you sign up for a new plan, usually 2 years (at least in the U.S.). But not the brand-new, latest-craze phones. Why? Supply and Demand. The RAZR was several hundred dollars when it first came out. I doubt you’ll see the iPhone discounted/subsidized, but it doesn’t have to be. The demand is strong enough that AT&T;and Apple don’t need to subsidize it.
I was a Verizon customer before buying my iPhone. No big difference between Verizon and AT&T;, except that Verizon phones don’t use SIM cards, so I couldn’t switch my phone to another network anyway without taking the phone to a new company and having them reprogram it (if that could be done). At least with AT&T;I can easily swap out SIM cards.
Apple entering into an exclusive agreement with AT&T;is not that out-of-character for Apple. The difference is that Apple gets a share of the monthly service fees – that doesn’t happen with any other product.
The earlier complaint about being able to use a laptop anywhere in the world and not being able to use an iPhone anywhere is stupid. You don’t need a service plan for a laptop, and your mobile phone is useless unless you have a mobile phone service plan. You can use your laptop in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, but don’t expect your mobile phone to work.
Finally, Apple has a different cat here with the iPhone. Never before has any company produced a mobile phone that runs on a REAL OS. Windows mobile is neutered, Symbian isn’t a desktop or full-fledged OS, and java is a joke as an OS.
Mac OS X on the iPhone changes everything. Apple can update and significantly expand your phone’s capabilities by issuing a software update. No one else can do that. Sure, some phones can have third party apps installed, and I suspect Apple will eventually do that with the iPhone via some sort of SDK and licensing/approval program. But most other mobile phones simply become outdated, while even the first iPhones can be changes markedly with a simple software update.
IT IS LEGAL FOR YOU TO UNLOCK A CELL PHONE IN THE UNITED STATES.
Yes.
APPLE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DISABLE YOUR PHONE BECAUSE YOU AVAIL YOURSELF OF YOUR RIGHT TO UNLOCK IT.
No, Apple did not disable your unlocked phone. After you unlocked it, it worked fine. Apple didn’t make you do anything to it. Rather, Apple warned you very loudly that its upgrade was not going to work on your unlocked phone, and that it was not supporting unlocked phones with additional features, bug fixes, or warranty service. You avail yourself of Apple’s continued services only through its legal agreement with you. So, either revert back to locked if you want the update, or don’t update. Your choice.
I’m not a Mac user. I have a clue.
I’m a lawyer. Go ahead and sue at your own risk.
I’m just PO’d that the iPhone has a glossy screen!
Doesn’t Apple know, that by not offering a matte option, we’re risking being subjected to blindness and hairy palms!
Why- I’m willing to bet that if Apple recalled every iPhone ever made and installed matte screens on them, users would be so impressed that they’d each buy 2 more!
Grrrr!
I don’t think Apple has really bought into this business model. It’s just a transition step. Let me explain.
Apple introduced the iTunes store with DRM, even though Jobs was previously quoted as being against DRM. It bided its time until circumstances were right to ask that DRM be lifted. But it used DRM in order to enter and begin to change the market.
Apple introduced the iPhone locked into AT&T;even though Jobs has derogatively referred to the carriers as “orifices”. It will bide its time until circumstances are right, at which time, phones will just get data and voice direct from the Internet. But it signed up one carrier to fundamentally change the handset maker – to carrier relationship.
– Apple wanted to do away with subsidies which distort what’s really happening, and drive the brand and intrinsic value of phones to zero (See RAZR as prime example and Motorola as an example of what happens to a company).
– Apple wanted the handset maker (themselves) to have the direct connection to the customer through changing phone distribution, service activation, and phone servicing, and through keeping their name and not the carrier’s name on the phone. (After all the carrier didn’t make the phone.)
– Apple wanted to change the mindset of phones as throwaway devices by continually adding functionality through software updates.
– Apple wanted to end the leverage carriers had over handset makers – where the carriers dictated what capabilities and services could be on the handset.
– Apple wanted all the service plans to have unlimited data at a competitive price, to allow for access to the Internet, thereby breaking the walled garden.
– Apple wanted to innovate within the carrier’s infrastructure, both in activation and in services like Visual Voicemail.
– For that continual innovation, Apple wanted to change how the handset makers get paid – from an upfront lump sum to a monthly revenue stream.
Do you think Apple could’ve even come to market without at least one partner?. Nope. Do you think if Apple had two partners (AT&T;and T-mobile), that either one would’ve agreed to all these changes? Nope.
From recent actions, it’s clear that Nokia understands what Apple is up to, and is embarking on breaking out as well.
I never knew that people who hacked their hardware could cry so much. Why don’t they just hack their phones again. Its like Steve and Woz complaining that improvements in phone technology makes their blue box stop working so the phone company should go back to the old equipment. Personaly I think the hacks are cool as shit but easy come easy go, I would rather have a phone that works and hacks that sometimes don’t.
“Grifterus:If you buy a Ford to put a Chevy engine on it, you do it at your own risk! Don’t expect Ford to make parts for your modified car or to fix your engine.”
Incorrect analogy. Following your logics in Apple case – it would mean that people were replacing hardware in their iPhones. AT&T;is not a part of Apple in any way, so Apple cannot punish its costomers for switching to other providers.
Your example with Ford in the light of what Apple did to its customers should sound like that: “Imagine Ford sells you a car and tells you to fuel it only at BP gas stations”. Thats what happening with iPhone now. And its not right morally, ethically, and I doubt if its legal.
I haven’t read any replies, but I’m responding anyways. MacDailyNews is way to defensive against these types of articles!! These articles, while somewhat FUDsy, do make a little sense. Apple does have the RIGHT to do what they want, and it is our choice to purchase it or not, but that doesn’t make it GOOD to make those consumer un-friendly decisions. Apple is a GREAT company, but even I am getting a little perturbed at them.
Yep, I’ve had two iPhones turned to bricks without any help from me, all in a one week period. The first one had a battery that heated up to the point that it burned my hand when I picked it up. The second one just basically quit working – it’s on its way for repair. If they send me new one instead, I’m seriously thinking of just selling it. I’ve never had this kind of problem with any previous Apple products.
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.
Apple will have installed and tested all the hacks. They know what changes are required in the Mac O/S on the iPhone to disable the hacks. The life of a hack will always be very short – how many weeks will it take Apple to eliminate it?
Some updates will include new features. Sexy new features which no iPhone owner will want to be without. And, as someone else pointed out in another post, it will not work with iTunes after a while.
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…