Apple not looking to 'proactively disable' unlocked iPhones

Shortly after Apple released a brief statement yesterday regarding iPhone modifications and their impacts on warranties, the firm's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing has stepped up to clarify a few issues. In a recent interview, Phil Schiller was quoted as saying that the upcoming software update "has nothing to do with proactively disabling a phone that is unlocked or hacked." Furthermore, he added that it was "unfortunate that some programs have caused damage to the iPhone software," but he noted that "Apple could not be responsible for... those consequences." All in all, it doesn't sound like Apple is changing its stance, but it seems safe to say that Cupertino won't be listening to any crying should subsequent updates render your hacked iPhone useless.

[Via AppleInsider]

[Josh L @ Sep 25th 2007 1:47PM]

In other breaking news today: Water is wet. More on this story as it develops.

[leland @ Sep 25th 2007 1:54PM]

exactly. all they are saying is "don't come crying to us if out update results in none of your third party apps working or re-locking." that is pretty standard CYA talk from any company.

[Khris @ Sep 25th 2007 1:47PM]

Unless they've designed the update to "report back" in some form whether or not the specific iPhone has been unlocked, what's stopping someone who bricks their unlocked iPhone from going back to Apple?

Consumer: Your update bricked my iPhone! I want it replaced!
Apple employee: Did you unlock your iPhone?
Consumer: No.
Apple employee: So the update bricked your iPhone that wasn't unlocked?
Consumer: Yes.

[Tom Boucher @ Sep 25th 2007 1:58PM]

Here's an easy way:

What's your AT&T Phone number / Account #?

[JT @ Sep 25th 2007 2:22PM]

That assumes that the "hacking" isn't obvious when you bring it in. If it's not, then sure it's worth a shot.

But if it's just not working correctly (e.g. restarting every 2 minutes) and the third party apps or unlock is still obvious, well you may be SOL.

[MR @ Sep 25th 2007 3:11PM]

> Here's an easy way:

> What's your AT&T Phone number / Account #?

Hmm.. mine was activate with an AT&T prepaid card before it's unlocked. Looks like I won't have any problem with this question should my iPhone cease working.

[Sal @ Sep 25th 2007 1:54PM]

i use itoner, should i restore or is this regarding just the unlocks.

[Vincent @ Sep 25th 2007 8:45PM]

It seems like iToner should be fine. It doesn't look like it's hacking into the firmware, just modifying the song files to match the genuine iTunes ringtones. Of course, if it were my iPhone, I'd let a few people try the update before I did...just in case.

[AdamY @ Sep 25th 2007 1:59PM]

Phil Schiller is your Daddy.

Gotta love the Phil.

[spass @ Sep 25th 2007 2:01PM]

Makes sense.
Apple does not care about the unlocked iPhones and ATT losing some potential clients, all they care is selling as many iPhones as possible.

[Xzavier @ Sep 25th 2007 2:31PM]

Come on bro... You don't actually expect a MAC-Fanboy to except that answer do you...

Besides... if the iPhone is sooo goood, the crème de la crème, the ultimate touch screen phone, the *ahem* be-all end-all of cell phones. Then what’s up with all of the hacking around with it just to get something simple, like a ring tones or something?

Ain't no way all of those iPhone users and MAC-Fanboys gonna let this go by! True hackers could care less because they know the risk and they know what they are doing. I bet you any amount of money that those Fan-Boys are looking at that the little red button to the right of me. :D

It's gonna be ok iPhone owners and MAC-FanBoys... It's gonna be ok... You’re just experiencing a dose of REALITY HERE! Apple ain't all that, neither is the iPhone, nor is your armature hacking skillz on the iPhone!

For all of you guys out their that "REALL DID THINK THAT APPLE WAS NOT GOING TO DO SOMETHING AND NOT LET YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS A NO NO AND YOU WILL GET NO TECHNICIAL SUPPORT FROM APPLE".

Then remember the saying... If it ain’t BROKE... then don't HACK-IT!

[Scott Theede @ Sep 25th 2007 2:27PM]

I find this almost a good thing on Apple's part. They are warning people that updating will cause problems. I'm with them for not activly trying to break the hacks, but they did warn the community beforehand.

[frozenrubber @ Sep 25th 2007 2:29PM]

They are getting a cut...in France, they negiotated 40% if I remember correctly. ATT's subscriber profit sharing is much less, but Apple doesn't just care about selling handsets. They will make more money off the subscription cut than that of the initial purchase.

[newgalactic @ Sep 25th 2007 2:43PM]

All I can say is that the results of Apple iPhone updates from now until Christmas will determine if there are two 8GB iPhones under the tree for my wife and I. I'm not interested in unlocking, but 3rd party apps look fun. They don't have to support Jailbreak and 3rd party apps, but they don't have to make it hard and I don't have to buy either.

[Art @ Sep 25th 2007 2:48PM]

According to Business Week Mag Apple and ATT have already started to sue the different people who have created the ways unlock the phone. So I'm sure they are going to "say" they won't break the unlocking methods, but the will stop it. It costs them money because Apple gets a portion of each monthly ATT bill. If you have an iPhone on another carrier they aren't making $$$.

[jdblaich @ Sep 25th 2007 2:53PM]

The right to unlock any cell phone was granted by The Library of Congress as an exemption to the DMCA. This is an explicit right of anyone to do what is necessary to unlock their cell phone.

When a company such as Apple breaks that unlock via an explicit lock or by other means they are in violation of the DMCA. Here's the deal.

Apple knew in advance of production that the DMCA permitted unlocking of phones. That this was an explicit right. They knew when they designed their software, their firmware, etc that the iPhone could legally be unlocked. The conflict in this matter is when they do other things to restrict, inhibit or deal a blow to the right to unlock. So, even tho they may not relock the phone by producing software that essentially breaks a working iphone that has been unlocked they would be violating the DMCA.

It works like this. Say the iphone is a car. The manufacture created the car for their explict reason. The owner of the car decides he's going to modify it. Now he's granted that right by law. The question is does he violate his warranty. Probably. People can live with that. The bigger question is this: does the car manufacturer have the right to hire mechanics that can knowingly break though indirectly but on purpose?

NO. They cannot use other means to circumvent the rights that you were granted by the law.

In essence, Apple knows the iphone has been unlocked and they know exactly how it was unlocked. They know most of the techniques used hence they have given the explicit threat that they can and will brick the phone if you chose to unlock it.

By knowing how it was unlocked and by knowing that users have the right to unlock it Apple knows in advance that if they do not take care to ensure the phones are not bricked they are in violation of the DMCA. It is their responsibility to ensure that they work around the unlocks so as to not purposefully brick the phones. By knowing the unlock techniques they know how to work around the unlocks. So, to modify the iphone with their updates and to brick the phone in the process is negligence on their part.

The only way they can get away with it is to tell the users during the update process that their phone may be unlocked and that their specific unlock could brick the phone and to put the onus in the hands of the owner of the phone.

But they still have the responsibility to do everything they can go ensure the update does not brick the phone, just as the car manufacturer has the responsibility to ensure that he doesn't do anything that makes the car unusable or inhibits the performance of the car.

I would expect that Apple will receive DMCA cease and desist letters from users due to the fact that the DMCA protects you both ways. They are not allowed to remove the right that the DMCA provided you explicitly.

Now also keep in mind that this is not an issue of a 2 year contract with AT&T. Why? As many of you may not realize you cannot use the iphone for *any* reason (except to make emergency phone calls) without activating it with AT&T (or through a hack). So, even when the 2 year contract is up you are still stuck with AT&T, period. The only way around that is to hack to unlock. Get it? You are an AT&T customer for life unless you have the right to unlock the phone and Apple knows this.

So, your contract is longer than 2 years. It is for the life of the iphone because the only way to get past the lock is to hack it or stop using it. The expected life of the iphone is longer than 2 years.

BTW, if you didn't know it you couldn't use the iphone for anything, not the wifi, not the calculator, not the camera, not the web browser, not the ipod for music nor videos, period, unless you agreed to the 2 year contract with AT&T. So effectively the iphone is owned by AT&T (not Apple), period.

[bad_apple @ Sep 25th 2007 4:01PM]

You really have no idea what you are talking about, so I would stop talking if I were you.

[Constable Odo @ Sep 25th 2007 5:23PM]

This statement is not directed on jdblaich.

Don't buy the iPhone if you don't want to follow the contract. There are huge amount of wonderful, unlocked handsets on the market. Should Apple have people sign a statement saying that they won't try to unlock the handset. Otherwise, the people should not be allowed to purchase it.

Maybe Apple should not have said anything and then one day all the unlocked iPhones just stop working when the firmware is upgraded. They could say that they didn't know people were stupid enough to try to unlock their precious iPhones and Apple did not intentionally turn their iPhones into bricks.

You really believe that manufacturers recommendations need not be heeded. I can just see people tinkering with their stoves or their boilers trying to get more heat out of them. If the house goes up in flames they'll swear that the manufacturer should have done everything possible as not to allow them to tamper with the device. They'll try to sue saying that since they own the device they can do anything they damn well please with it without accepting any responsibility.

Why should Apple give a darn how the phone has been unlocked. They've already told you not to unlock it. That's fair warning. You are looking for loopholes just as a lawyer would in order to free criminals. If a criminal assaults someone, you'd be happy to get them off if the arrest doesn't quite comply to letter of the law. That's all well and good, but if you or your family were the ones that had been assaulted, you wouldn't necessarily be so understanding. It's true that everyone has some rights, but they really shouldn't be abused without accepting some responsibility.

I know you're just trying to explain your point of view, so that's okay. I don't even own an iPhone so it doesn't affect me directly. I believe that any iPhone owner should attempt to unlock their iPhones to their heart's content, but just don't bitch or whine to Apple if something goes wrong. They've been forewarned and that really should be enough. Somehow that equates to Gestapo tactics in these people's minds and their furor seems a bit out of proportion.

Is a sign saying "Keep off the grass" considered a threat? If it's a public park, you could argue that you helped pay for it and are entitled to walk on it. Yet the sign could be seen as just a polite way of telling you that it's difficult enough to take care of and if too many people walk on it, it might become damaged. Hardly a threat. I guess it's a matter of interpretation. Any good lawyer could probably find loopholes in the Ten Commandments if they're that intent on breaking them.

I think Apple is going to win this argument.

[Luke @ Sep 25th 2007 7:41PM]

So let me get this straight...

You think that people hacking software (which is prohibited by the EULA and possibly other laws) should be catered for when designing firmware? In essence, design their whole firmware around a security flaw?

I would have thought (haven't checked) that AT&T have provided a way to unlock the phone for a price ie plan cancellation cost. I can't see why Apple should in any way allow it to be done any other way, ESPECIALLY when the user signs an agreement with the telco and apple agreeing to such provisions.

Software piracy/hacking is also a crime. I don't think the end justifies the means in this case, now, does it?

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole iPhone thing is an absolute rip off, but that doesn't justify making Apple cater for those who break their contracts.

And as for using the other functions of the iPhone without the phone - come on! It's called an iPHONE!!! It is marketed as a phone, so why shouldn't apple require people to use it as such?

[crescentdavid @ Sep 25th 2007 3:12PM]

I find it touching there are still people who believe the PR spin distributed from outsourcing corporations dedicated to wringing the last penny out of its customers. Of course Apple will break any hacks it can. They interfere with the maximum cash flow that can be extracted from their vertically integrated monopoly.

[yakapo @ Sep 25th 2007 3:16PM]

this just in... Ford is requiring all new vehicles purchased from now on to only use "Shell Extreme Ford Fuel" (SEFF). This fuel is priced at $5 per gallon but it must be used or you will void the warranty.

[JT @ Sep 25th 2007 3:40PM]

This just in... you don't have to buy the car if you don't like the requirements.

[saintchuck @ Sep 25th 2007 4:30PM]

I think I will make it my lifes mission to get it into peoples heads that if they don't like the rules then don't play the game.

I have nothing against Apple for locking the iPhone but I won't buy one because it is locked. I would love to own one but I would need to install specific apps that Apple doesn't offer and so won't.

Everyone knew before buying that the phones would be locked so to start whining about something that you knew was a distinct possibility (hacked phone might break with updates) is asinine.

Makes me more ticked with these hack developers. They make it so simple that people with no clue about what they are doing can apply them. When they end up with a bricked phone they will have no where to go for a fix.

Caveat emptor applies both to the iPhone and the iPhone hacks it would seem.

[g2 @ Sep 25th 2007 4:31PM]

Sort of off topic....

Companies like Toyota say you void the warranty if you use a motor oil brand other than Toyota, even if it's a name brand, SAE certified oil. I was told this during purchase.

Maybe I can dump that oil on the iPhone when it bricks :)

[uagent @ Sep 26th 2007 3:53AM]

@JT:

This just in from 1975: New law (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) prevents Ford from voiding warranty to those who refuse to purchase Shell Extreme Ford Fuel, unless malfunction specifically caused by inferior fuel. Film at 11.

Next up, thinking before typing on the Internet, is it really necessary?

[g2 @ Sep 25th 2007 4:00PM]

Why doesn't Apple decide how much profit each iphone is worth? 600 or 400 or whatever...

Offer to sell unlocked phones at higher price to get profits upfront and discount if your with a carrier and get profits over time.

Isn't this how everyone else has done it. Why break a working business model?

Seems like Apple+ATT have gotten too greedy over iPhone and get back to basics.

[bad_apple @ Sep 25th 2007 4:21PM]

FYI: Apples business model has been fueled by greed since the start of the company. They prey on peoples fear of computers to trick the weak minded into buying their idiot proof pretty products. p. p.

[saintchuck @ Sep 25th 2007 4:46PM]

All companies business models are based on greed and quite a few are working on duplicating Apples closed system.

Shouldn't all products be idiot-proof and pretty? The fact that they aren't shouldn't be used to blast Apple (there are enough things to blast Apple about).

[Long @ Sep 25th 2007 4:10PM]

I see lawsuits coming if the new apple update bricks peoples iphones. If you were able to get the phone working after running a software code, then apple decides to release a update that makes your devide inoperable, then I think people will sue because it is legal for you to unlock your phone.

Apple is making all these speeches and interviews saying, "unfortunate that some programs have caused damage to the iPhone software." There's no damage. They want the public to believe them and think that unlocking your iphone is like installing a virus that does damage. Thus you created the problem and you might have a problem when your iphone becomes inoperable due to apples software update.

[saintchuck @ Sep 25th 2007 4:19PM]

It is also legal for Apple to update their product.

I posted a reply to the long DMCA post but it didn't show so I'll post a shorter version here.

The DMCA exemption for cellphones allows us to unlock our phones without worrying about being charged with a DMCA violation. It does not stop Apple/AT&T/Nokia/Verizon/et al from doing things that hinder us from unlocking our phones. It certainly doesn't require companies to test any updates against the plethora of hacks and unsupported software that users put on their phones.

[g2 @ Sep 25th 2007 4:15PM]

Locked phones only make sense when the phones are subsidized. Also, I can't see why the iPhones's other functions (iPod, wifi, etc) were locked-out without activation, only the phone functions need be.

That's very repressive thinking by Apple.
Time to bring back Apple Computer and just say no to Apple, Inc.

[Shan @ Sep 25th 2007 4:41PM]

Engadget seriously needs to update that picture of Phil Schiller.. he looks like he's promoting an 80's "keep fit" video!

[JPerry2010 @ Sep 25th 2007 4:49PM]

Xzavier...accept not except...

[adrian @ Sep 25th 2007 5:04PM]

I agree with Apple. Hack your IPhone when your not supposed to?, It goes wrong?, You pay the price, no comebacks.

[sean @ Sep 25th 2007 6:43PM]

when did Steve Guttenberg join Apple?

[john @ Sep 25th 2007 7:29PM]

Apple obviously read my previous comments and wised up.

[minimalist @ Sep 25th 2007 9:30PM]

This is ridiculous. People need to accept some responsibility for their actions. You can't screw with a product's firmware and then expect updates from that company to work flawlessly with your modified device. All the lame excuses about how Apple SHOULD have done this or Apple SHOULDN'T have done that with the iPhone are inconsequential and besides the point. You knew the limitations. You bought it. You willfully hacked it. Now you are on your own.

This isn't that hard to understand: If you choose to hack any electronics product, proceed at your own risk. Don't expect the company whose terms of use you are willfully violating to hold your hand when something goes wrong. And don;t expect them to waste their time designing their updates to keep your hacks up and running. After all, Apple isn't FORCING you to update your firmware. You could choose to only use updates from the hacker community or not update at all.

[sanchezino @ Sep 26th 2007 12:10AM]

I love my iPhone and I'm even thinking of getting a new iMac so don't think I'm an Apple hater. I believe that as soon as Apple reaches a higher market share, maybe 10%-20%, they will be hit with an antitrust. You don't have to be a lawyer to see all the unfair business practices they are getting away with. If MS got hit just for including IE with Windows, imagine what awaits Apple. Apple is like Mr. Burns, always coming up with these greedy schemes to make more money (earphone jack, ringtones, locked phone, etc, etc) even though they don't have to. Their products are so well designed that all they need to do is loosen up a little bit by lowering their prices and allowing programmers more freedom with OS X, and within a few years they'll be right up MS alley.

To Apple: Stop being greedy and you will succeed beyond your dreams.

[Jenniferbellucci @ Sep 26th 2007 12:37PM]

Apple releasing a new firmware, expected. It to be cracked...a given...what they should be very wary of it if they start releasing updates to cut out the 'hacks' out there...as they will go down the same route as the psp...cracked wide open.

As for the actual iPhone itself...currently it has the kewl effect and is pretty good as a glorified iPod (iTouch screen is nasty compared to this) for the 20-somethings gen.

In my eyes, apple need to sort out there PC range, new iMAC with the black outline....eeew...must admit though the MAC workstation is one awesome looking machine (got one here as a test bed). How long before we get a MBP redesign with some awesome new apple-style tech.

Oh well...we can dream. I am still not happy with the apple people though...Leo is still not out...the school season is over...I mean...what are u thinking? Oh and while people keep going on about vista being whatever...when SP1 comes out expect the uptake to scream to MS-normal levels. They had the perfect chance to bring people to OSX via updates products with Leo OS and new MB/MBP/iMAC (new ones got that glossy cover thing I HATE!!!!) and shown how much kooler the MAC is...also they could tie in the whole iPhone coming soon, etc or something along the lines of if u buy a MAC Laptop/PC then u get a simfree iPhone for a discounted price...actually thats a pretty good as apple would sell more apple stuff.
I just think they have abandoned there PC side of things for the iPOD...so while the iPOD is still king...why practically give up on the MACs and stil create Leo OSX? At least MS actually standby there products, no matter what people think of them. Look at vista, its getting a battering from so many sources for one reason...the majority will eventually be using it.

Note to self...got to buy a pink cover for my MBP...oooo...it is like so kewl and pretty fast so far.

Jbell®

[saintchuck @ Sep 26th 2007 6:17AM]

@uagent:

All the unhacked iPhones not being bricked is the only evidence Apple will need to show that it was the hacks that caused the bricking...

Warranty voided.

[uagent @ Sep 27th 2007 8:16AM]

Hardly. You can't prove that the hardware itself was inherently broken by the unlocking. Yes, the software itself is broken, and I agree they definitely shouldn't have to test every hack configuration out there to see if their software would work, but in that case, they should offer to reload the original firmware, in order to demonstrate that the hardware (is/is not) working (and, in fact, this is what they offer to do on old iPods, at least the iPod Photo I had). If you don't want that, then sucks to be you, but to say your hardware warranty is voided automagically doesn't fit within the warranty law. That would be like Ford denying a warranty claim on my truck's transmission simply because I have a K&N air filter installed.

That being said, why people would buy these phones for as much as they cost and take such abuse from the manufacturer regarding them is beyond me. The biggest feature it had going for it, the touch screen, is being replicated by other cellphone companies, as well as Apple itself in the iPod Touch. I don't mean to flamebait on this one, I'm just saying that I personally won't be spending my money on one. If you have one and are happy with it, I am honestly quite happy for you, since that would be the purpose of purchasing something: it suits your needs and/or wants.

[saintchuck @ Sep 27th 2007 5:21PM]

Don't misunderstand me. I don't own an iPhone and probably never will due to it's closed nature. If I bought one, I would need to jailbreak it so that I could load other software.

That is also my point. The warranty (both hardware and software) should be voided if your modify it. If you use a hardware hack to unlock it, the hardware warranty is voided. If you use a software hack to jailbreak it, the software warranty is voided. This doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't be able to fix the problem but *I* don't believe that users should expect it to be covered under warranty. The hardware hack I think is more obviously a warranty breaker but even the software hack is a deliberate user caused change to the Apple supplied product.

If you reprogram the fuel map on your car and bork it should the manufacturer be responsible for fixing it under warranty?
If you lock the differential and end up breaking a axle should the manufacturer be responsible?

I don't believe you can seperate the software and hardware. Apple designed them to work together. If a user changes either on their own then to expect Apple to repair it under warranty is unfair, in my opinion.