iPhone users calling for class action lawsuit over firmware v1.1.1

Angry with Apple over the absolute lockdown of the iPhone? You're not alone. Angry enough to start a lawsuit over it? You're probably in a far smaller group entirely, which now includes a number of rabble-rousers on Apple's forums, whose comment threads were killed shortly after beginning discussions of calling for a class action suit against Apple. (Really though, what'd they expect?) There's no question that users want some retribution for the sorry, sometimes even bricked state the iPhone's now in, but big talk is infinitely smaller than even minor action, so until some brave (or publicity hungry) individuals step up to the plate to test legality of disabling hacked features on personal electronics, it sounds like we'll all just have to be content with our $100 refunds or reduced-price purchases until this thing works itself out.

[Ian Rendall @ Oct 1st 2007 4:26AM]

Stevie Jobs has gone from being a revered innovator to a lambasted, clueless executive out of touch with his customers.

[CapnVan @ Oct 1st 2007 4:49AM]

Yeah, he's the clueless one. Over a million units sold in a couple of months at a ridiculous price, and he's the one who's out of touch with what people want.

[Ian Rendall @ Oct 1st 2007 5:26AM]

I feel I need to justify my opinion.

People want storage on the iPod Touch, people want an open iPhone. This we know.

If hard drives are not an option, then at least allow the user to add their own storage via removable flash memory.


Apple only need look at the success of Symbian and Windows Mobile to see that a 3rd party friendly OS works and sells. Even Microsoft can do an open OS, and even support it very well.

Why are Apple so concerened about 3rd party apps on the iPhone?
You can do what you want with a 5g iPod and they don't seem to be bothered at all.

It just gets to me a little, as Jobs was nothing more than a glorified hacker in his early days, and now he's turning his back on his roots.

As for over a million units sold for a ridiculous price, well, that's the hype machine in action for you.
Sony could do with the Apple PR guys for the PS3.

[dom.rout @ Oct 2nd 2007 2:01PM]

I've got a feeling that the big issue isn't 3rd party apps here - rather, it's the unlocking of the iPhone to run on other carriers. It's the same with any mobile phone; they're locked to a single netework so that that network gets a source of revenue and subsidises the production of the hardware.

I can imagine that Apple is under a lot of pressure from AT&T, and sympathise with that. However, a better solution would be to create means for the user to actually put data on/get data off the device freely without the circumvention of software on the phone. It would also be nice if Apple would allow 3rd party applications, instead of insisting that being able to access sites through safari allows that. Ugh.

[Chris Aubeck @ Oct 1st 2007 6:19AM]

Adding an SD card will not be enough for people who have been spoilt with 30 or more GB to store music on.

If you're not happy with the storage offered, don't buy it. I can't see why people need to complain. These are not human rights issues under discussion, we're talking about a what a toy can do.

Enjoy today's gadgets today, or enjoy tomorrow's gadgets tomorrow. Just don't forget to enjoy.

[Ian Rendall @ Oct 1st 2007 6:41AM]

@Chris
Your comments are correct.
But I'm not really complaining as such, more making an observation.

I just feel it's simply a shame that Apple has brought out this glorious looking touch screen iPod, and not given it the storage modern consumers (some, not all) desire.

I'm sure Apple have their reasons for not offering more storage, but surely they could round it up to 20Gb. It certainly SOUNDS better at least!

[Rich UK @ Oct 1st 2007 9:34AM]

Ian Rendall

Windows mobile... LOL not going to even bother how that buggy POS even compares to OSX

If apple put a hard drive on the touch you'd be the first to complain about the lack of battery life ( don't forget this thing has wifi, and a huge touch screen) and the fact it is twice as thick

So an SD Slot we could add say 4 more Gigs of music of videos but there is always a cost in dimensions... its pretty packed in there as it is. Anyway in the grand scheme 4GB extra isn't of any interest of those that are used to their 80GB (or even bigger) music library not to even mention Video

Why would jobs care about the 5G ipod being hacked.. the security is alot less of and issue without wifi, bluetooth and edge networks of the iphone, the security of the iphone is a much bigger issue than that of 5.5G ipod and its intergity has alot more importance on apple's reputation.

[Ian Rendall @ Oct 1st 2007 9:45AM]

Yes, Windows Mobile is quite buggy, but there is a huge community of users out there fixing bugs and sharing the results. Granted, they shouldn't have to fix the problems themselves, but there you go.
So maybe i'm wrong about the hard drive thing. Consider me told!

[Bruce @ Oct 1st 2007 11:23PM]

Here's a good article. Looks like it's begun...

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1160278&tstart=0

[Kizorblade @ Oct 1st 2007 4:37AM]

While I do agree that it was rather unfair of Apple to disable all the 3rd party hacks, do they really think they have a good case with hacked apps?

Throw it out please.

[Jah @ Oct 1st 2007 4:41AM]

Please could someone clarify - if you pay Apple can they revive your iBrick? If not, I really think Apple are being very very silly in this matter.

[dagamer34 @ Oct 1st 2007 11:09AM]

They want you to buy a new phone. Definitely very silly indeed.

[Darnell @ Oct 1st 2007 4:49AM]

The issue at hand is exactly what can you do with the items you purchased. I think that it's only natural that people would want to modify their purchases to suit their needs. But how does it go? I wonder if Apple knew how much people would have preferred an unlocked phone?

[Vincent @ Oct 1st 2007 4:55AM]

How many of the current iPhone owners actually unlocked theirs? I'm interested to read this, if you have a link. I wonder if reading about the iPhone mostly on e))) or c|net makes the actual number seem larger than it really is.

[bugmat @ Oct 1st 2007 11:49AM]

I know I for one living in the Caribbean would've bought an unlocked iPhone (as I did when buying my Treo and all my other phones). Cheaper to travel with and allows ppl in the not so technologically fortunate areas outside the US to enjoy the iPhone too w/o waiting in vain for some local carrier to get it 10 ears from now! It's why Nokia and others like Motorola are so popular globally - they always offer unlocked phones at a slightly higher price. If only Jobs had a wee bit more business sense (wrt cellular business) he could've had his AT&T mega-deal AND the rest of the world by simply selling unlocked iPhones @ $599 and locked down ones @ $399!

[Snud @ Oct 1st 2007 4:52AM]

I've been following this issue closely for a few weeks now and I have pretty much lost all interest in owning an iPhone. I have no interest in shelling out good money for any item when the manufacturer insists said item can only be used in a manner consistent with their approval, and otherwise will cease to function entirely. Who owns the damn phone, the customer or Apple?

[Jonhimslf @ Oct 1st 2007 7:48AM]

This is exactly the problem with everyone going nuts here.
1) You own the phone NOT the software. Apple didn't update the phone here, they updated the software, which they own. People could have not updated if they knew that they had done something wrong (illegal?)
2) "...the manufacturer insists said item can only be used in a manner consistent with their approval..." Again, this is ONLY true if the use chooses to apply updates to the software (which again, they don't own). People were free to leave their hacked phones alone. Apple isn't responsible for how 3rd party(NOT SUPPORTED) software affects a device that was never to have 3rd party things on it in the first place.
3) I'm starting to really lose sympathy for people that knowingly changed the phone and are now upset because they applied an update that they were warned about.
Can you imagine if the "official" word was still that they didn't support them but said they wouldn't intentionally try to brick phones with "extras". Of course people would interpret that as "Go ahead hack away and we won't do anything about it" despite the fact that the original statement was nowhere close to that.

[Jeremy @ Oct 1st 2007 10:11AM]

Your argument is RIDICULOUS. If you go buy a brand new BMW, drive it off the lot under warranty, drive straight to a tuner shop and have a supercharger put on, then go back in to BMW to get your engine fixed... guess what?! VOIDED WARRANTY. So who owns the BMW... you or BMW?! STUPID STUPID STUPID argument. YOU own it. Did you hear that? YOU OWN IT. Which means you now own the problems you have created for yourself. Apple told you it would happen, you ignored them. Cry me a river, dork.

You were given a warranty, you were told what would and would not affect the warranty. You were given device specs. You knew what it could and could NOT do. You bought it. You screwed it up. Apple gave normal users the WiFi store, louder speakers, etc.. and they gave you EXACTLY what you deserved. A bricked phone.

Who really gives a crap anyway - the 3rd party apps were TERRIBLE.

And I don't want to hear anything about Symbian and Windoze Mobile. They only reason they had such 'success' is because there was never a player like Apple in the mobile territory. Now there is and the rules are changing. Exercise your right as a consumer while simultaneously doing normal iPhone users a favor - don't buy one.

As for me... I'll continue using the coolest device on the planet. Happily.

[dagamer34 @ Oct 1st 2007 11:09AM]

@ Jeremy

If you believed everything a company told you, consumer abuse would be so rampant right now. By the way, EULA's on software are largely unenforcable, you can't just sign away your rights. Companies do not sue people because of stuff in EULAs (or get away with stuff for that matter) but must use actual laws instead.

[Jeff Foster @ Oct 1st 2007 12:19PM]

@ Jeremy

-- exactly!

Who are all these idiots who don't understand this very basic concept?

[momukri @ Oct 7th 2007 7:35AM]

@Jeremy --- Your counter argument sucks! Let's take your BMW example here.

If you take your BMW to a garage which installs a super charged engine for you, you void your warranty. Granted.

However, the next time you take your car to BMW for servicing, it might not be under warranty, but also, BMW will NOT put water in your gas tank to stop your car from working, would they?

If you pay for the iphone and chose to unlock it, Apple should NOT brick the phone, but rather re-lock/restore the phone to it's original state.


Also, to burst your bubble, the iphone features/functionality suck compared to a lot of other smartphones out there.

[Ralph Brayham @ Oct 1st 2007 4:57AM]

So let me see if I understand...

1. Users bought a phone that by contract was tied to a NW carrier. And the vendor (Apple) made no warrants that the phone would work with another carrier.
2. Users hacked the phone to bypass material elements of the contract.
3. Apple went out of their way to announce to the user community that future upgrades could render hacked phones inoperable
4. Users with hacked phones upgrade to 1.1.1 get bricked and then complain?

Come on folks... you were warned... you are adults... get over it...

[Wii60 @ Oct 1st 2007 5:25AM]

I see where you may think that, but in actuality, I never agreed to ANY contract with apple at all. To unlock an iPhone, you go to the Apple Store, buy one, and come home. All you do is swipe a card and they email you the receipt. Then you send the iPhone into restore mode. You never see or touch an EULA. The only agreement Apple and I had was "I'll give you 300 bucks for this hardware." "Ok."

Does this mean Apple should support my modding ways? Of course not. BUT there is absolutely no contract involved here, so I didn't break it. If Apple forced a firmware update on me(which they absolutely did not) it'd be a different story.

[coolblue @ Oct 1st 2007 6:53AM]

Only they have not hacked it. Unlocking a phone in the UK is a legal right and the operator has to do it for free after 1 year if asked to do so by the customer. It is also perfectly legal to unlock the phone before the 1 year but a fee (around £10-£20) is normally paid to either the operator or a third party unlocking company to do it for you. Or obviously it is also legal to unlock it yourself for free. I can't believe it would be legal for a phone company to break your phone if it is unlocked especially when you have paid the full amount for it (bearing in mind almost all phones are heavily subsidsed in the uk -even the N95, which justifies locking you into a 1 year contract). Having said this it is your own fault if you bought one and even more if you bought one and upgraded the firmware after you unlocked it!

[Cagrino @ Oct 1st 2007 7:14AM]

@Wii60

Ok, let's be real here. If you went through the trouble of figuring out how to get around activating the iPhone through the iTunes process, which would have shown you an EULA, then you definitely knew what you were doing was not consistent with the EULA. Even if you're an absolute n00b, practically every instruction out there that told you how to circumvent the system, told you that they are not responsible if you bricked you iPhone and that your warranty is probably void.

The real problem here is that apple has managed to create a device that not only typical early adopters would buy on day one, but also the generally cautious public. In doing this, early adopters and joe-i-don't-know-a-firmware-from-a-hole-in-the-ground got lumped together in the increasingly easy unlocking methods that were published.

Early adopters, I being one, would never cry about this being unfair and I'm going to sue. Sure they would not be happy about it, but they know what they're getting into; unlike the general public. For that matter, early adopters never cry about price drops either, as they are inevitable. I can't count how many items I've purchased an item only to see the price plummet in a few months.

Clarification:
I didn't buy the iPhone (personal usability reasons), but did buy the Touch.

[coolblue @ Oct 1st 2007 8:34AM]

But your guarantee should not be void by simply unlocking it. There is a law in the us that states this (bought in to stop car makers voiding a warranty if you fit a new steroe for example). As I said earlier, it is law in the UK that they unlock your phone when you ask them to. It seems very apparent that Apple purposefully bricked the unlocked phones in an attempt to stop more people unlocking them. I have no idea if anyone in the UK has experienced a problem with this firmware upgrade but if they have then I think they would easily win a court case.

[Rocketboy @ Oct 1st 2007 1:40PM]

If your new 'steroe' causes your car's computer to short out, your SOL. You're on your own if you do something yourself.

[dagamer34 @ Oct 1st 2007 11:17AM]

@Cagrino

Let's also get real here, Cagrino. EULAs are rarely enforceable by law. Never have companies actually used a EULA to protect themselves but other laws instead.

[John McKee @ Oct 1st 2007 11:20AM]

@Wii60

huh, I'm looking at my iPhone box right now...

"Requirements: Minimum new two-year wireless service plan with AT&T required to activate all iPhone features, including iPod features•Mac or PC with USB 2.0 • Mac OS X v10.4.10 or later, Windows XP Home or Professional (SP2), or Windows Vista • iTunes 7.3 or later required for activation and some features

Service plan with AT&T required for cellular network capabilities on expiration of initial new two-year agreement"

I'm afraid trying to make a legal case against Apple based on that would have as much merits as trying to make the case that you are owed compensation for your phone not working with Windows 95. To activate the iPhone you must also agree to the same terms in a checkbox with iTunes.

[stevesreed @ Oct 1st 2007 11:25AM]

coolblue:

They did hack it. They modified low level firmware in a way that is incompatible with the update. Note that the paid unlock does not brick the phone, so the free version did do some damage to the phone setup.

It may not be illegal to unlock a phone, but if you break it in the process, it's your fault, not Apple's...

[Blackster @ Oct 1st 2007 4:57AM]

there gooes the loyal applefan.
as i quote my favourite simpson-character: "HA HA!"

[Ryan Maxwell @ Oct 1st 2007 5:11AM]

all apple needs to do is release a separate firmware flash utility, that both restores the OS firmware AND baseband modem firmware to a factory, un-bricked state. Hey, they released one to un-brick gen 1 shuffles (just used it yesterday), just do the same for iPhone.

[Tired_ @ Oct 1st 2007 5:17AM]

I don't understand why they can't just put some kind of flash-writer or whatever into every store, and then sell 'unbricking' (or iPhone Factory-default Restoration, whatever they want to call it) for a nominal amount (say, $50...enough to deter casual users), which would restore the phone to the original, supported condition. I realize that the warranty doesn't cover this and all, but wouldn't it be a nice PR move to at least bend a little bit?

[Ecko @ Oct 1st 2007 5:27AM]

Ha! How comical. All Apple has to do is to show the fact that all they did was alter the authentication procedures of the phone in order to improve user security and data safety and that stupid case is closed. It wont even reach the ears of a real judge. People need to realise that this isn't a game that is played by amateurs. Its the big leagues... and anything that Apple does is without a shadow of a dought legally sound.


Good luck to the people that choose to go ahead with this in any case... although by undergoing with these proceedings they are in actual fact crippling the community that they claim to defend. The more people that wasn't Apple times and money with unwarrented court actions the less time Apple has to push the industry to innovate and expand.

Thats my two cents.

[Rich @ Oct 1st 2007 5:36AM]

The problem is that stupid people buy into hype. Stupid people also hate personal responsible and thus love lawsuits. I think it was inevitable that the most hyped phone in history would be followed by lots of lawsuits.

[? @ Oct 1st 2007 5:51AM]

Its more of Aple's fault of not able to find a less restrictive service provider, AT&T probably forced apple to re-lock the iphones due to their exclusive deal, then again who didn't see that from miles away? If Apple has done deals with many operators at once, this won't happen, AT&T won't have this monopoly, and though they want to keep it that way.

[Jean @ Oct 1st 2007 5:51AM]

I hope a class action lawsuit does get started and finally challenges cell phone providers on this very questionable business model. Since the DMCA act was changed recently and not being able to unlock a phone is no longer protected and basically illegal for carriers to refuse to unlock a cell phone. (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/commentary/circuitcourt/2006/12/72241)
simply put the purpose of locked phones (supposedly) was to keep lower prices and discounts on hte handsets. but if you purchased the phone at its full retail price, it was unnecessary.

Forget about 3rd party app's right now, just worry about the unlocking portion. the rest will follow. and support for 3rd party app's may not hold up in court.

[fa @ Oct 1st 2007 8:00AM]

i totally agree with that, dude..
don't know how people there could be so conservative and blind! god bless you, america.

[saintchuck @ Oct 1st 2007 2:57PM]

It is not illegal for a carrier to refuse to unlock your phone in the US.

[Mike @ Oct 1st 2007 5:58AM]

Wahhh, wahhh Apple and that ... that ... that MAN IN BLACK SMOCK BROKE MY iPHONE. WAHHHH, WAHHHH.

Never laughed so hard! Really. So many victims. Ahhh, maybe mommie will come with her teat for you to suck so you will feel better. There, there you are little baby. That should sooth you.

You decided to play with fire, and got you little victim eyebrows singed. And for those of you threatening to leave Apple ... do us a favor and CARRY IT. APPLE DOES NOT WANT, NOR NEED YOUR BUSINESS, CRYBABY.

[Rick @ Oct 1st 2007 6:37AM]

Amen!! F***ing Hilarious! Greatest day #1 was when they dropped the price $200, greatest day #2 is now this. Apple users are getting spoonfed the same diarrhea they've dished out so many times before. Was it worth saving all that hard earned cashed and waiting in line all this time??? Maybe its time to wake up and grow a brain - Jobs and Apple aren't God and they don't give a rats ass about you. Meanwhile I'll enjoy the cash in my pocket and my vastly superior and less expensive Sprint Mogul.

[Homeboy @ Oct 1st 2007 6:06AM]

Pointless law suit which won't lead any where. You all knew what you were in for when you bought the phone. Unlocked, AT&T only and no support for 3rd paty applications.

By unlocking it or installing 3rd party applications on it you violate the user agreement, SO YOU LOSE!!

Apple 1 - rebellious consumers 0



I know it sucks but this time I don't feel sorry for the affected ones, you knew what you were in for.

[James @ Oct 1st 2007 6:12AM]

When will you iFanboys ever learn? You all b*tch about Sony and DRM (like Apple doesn't have any, but I digress) yet this company asks a fortune for a product then dictates to you how it should be used.

Guess you'll all need to sell a few of those Star Wars toys to pay for the suit.

[James Rainey @ Oct 1st 2007 6:17AM]

GET OVER IT.. APPLE produced the iPhone. You either do or don't update the device with Apple software. Accept the consequences of upgrading/updating. You can't sue for backwards compatibility.

[slug @ Oct 1st 2007 6:22AM]

When you buy the iPhone you have to sign some sort of contract with apple and at&t. Im sure somewhere on that there will be something about hacking it and opening it up to other networks, or modifying the firmware. So if you breach the contract, apple has every right to block off your phones! If you have a problem with at&t, then you shouldn't have bout the iPhone.

[alex barus @ Oct 1st 2007 6:25AM]

Stupidity has repeats its own history.

[IndiaTech @ Oct 1st 2007 6:29AM]

I think Apple would have been fine if users were unlocking their iPhones using some underground pirated firmware tools. But what might have pissed off Apple is when these guys started comercializing these tools. Like iPhoneSimFree.

[jonatron @ Oct 1st 2007 6:35AM]

idiots!

[XM RULES @ Oct 1st 2007 6:47AM]

I've been using a Mac for 2.5 years and I'm hooked. A fanboy? Well, maybe. However, anyone who bought an iPhone who is upset with the storage should have known what they were getting. To say Apple SHOULD have provided insertable memory is a good observation, but they chose not to and you should have known when you bought it. If you are upset that Apple is taking steps to prevent you from hacking your device, then you are out of touch with reality. They have every right to protect their products. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Unreal....

[Ian Rendall @ Oct 1st 2007 8:04AM]

i don't own an iPhone.