Apple sued in iBrick fiasco

...and Sony should be sued for not providing warranty to anyone who chipped their PS2...

>> and Sony should be sued for not providing warranty to anyone who chipped their PS2

And how does that change monopoly practices? Bit of a flaky analogy you've chosen there!

The point though is that should Apple have the right to effectively destroy products that customers have bought, just because Apple doesn't agree with how they're being used? If I sold someone a TV, would I have a right to go round their house and hit it with a hammer if they were to try and watch ITV on it? I think not!

Apple's socialist greedy business model really hurt the iPhone's sales. Forcing the consumer to one provider was stupid but then again Apple is all about making $$$$ and screwing the consumer. This is yet another reason to boycott Apple. Now before all you fan boys start flaming me with your typical Apple worship please stop to think about how many iPhones would have been sold "if" comrade Apple had not forced At&T on would be buyers.

I'm hoping the US government will force Apple to unlock the iPhone and repair the phones that Apple broke.




Let's review. Apple develops and markets a device and then warns unlocking that device may cause problems when we update it. Users then do what Apple warned them not to then complain when it breaks. Folks if you don't like Apple's updates to their products 1)Don't buy an iPhone 2)Don't update your iPhone 3)Buy some POS from Motorola or Nokia and have fun with that. If Apple put into their products everything everybody wanted you'd have a phone running Symbian or worse Microsoft! It's called Quality Control. If it was wide open for every shoddy garage modded app out there, soon your beautiful iPhone would be flooded by viruses and worms and I bet you'd all be saying how much Apple sucks then too.

Now i am all about hating apple's business practices. But making a phone exclusive to a provider for a period of time is pretty standard practice in the cell phone industry.

Hello,

Apple did not stop people from hacking the iphone. If you hacked the iphone it would have worked fine if you didn't update the firmware. So they did not brick the phone. The phone was only bricked if you updated to the NEW iphone firmware after you tinkered with it. So if you hacked it then you broke your hack and the phone by making the update incompatible with your phone.

You would have been fine if you opted out of doing the most recent iphone update.


>> But making a phone exclusive to a provider for a period of time is pretty standard practice in the cell phone industry.

Sure it is standard practice to do this but to destroy all of the unlocked phones with the update is simply wrong. I agree with Dave if the consumer wants to unlock a product they paid for and use it with another provider they should have the right to do so.

You forget that unlocking cell phones to be used on other carriers is protected by DCMA. Meaning that it is not against the law to unlock 
a phone that has been locked for a specific carrier. 

For Apple to brick iPhones because they were modified to use a different carrier should be illegal based off of DCMA because it is specifically allowed by law.. If it is not then it is at the very least bad business on Apples part.

"Apple's socialist greedy business model really hurt the iPhone's sales. Forcing the consumer to one provider was stupid but then again Apple is all about making $$$$ and screwing the consumer."

Do you understand what socialism is? Forcing the consumer to rely on just one company for service so that your company can make extra profits is the exact opposite of socialism. It is the epitome of capitalism, in fact. You, sir, are rather uneducated about economic systems.

Apple probably does not deserve a lawsuit. I'd say criticism is in order, though. Honestly, I think Apple would have made more money selling the iPhone unlocked. They could have attracted far more customers. But, because of the ridiculous amount of money AT&T was willing to fork over to the very CAPITALISTIC (read: not at all resembling socialist or communist) Apple, just to be sure they'd get every customer's business, I'm sure Apple fared pretty well financially in the end.

First, in order to engage in monopoly practices you have to have a monopoly. Apple does not. There are plenty of other phones out there. Second, Apple did not destroy the iPhone, the user who choose to hack their iPhone after being warned bricked his or her iPhone. Take some responsibility. Third, as a regular user I really do not feel like paying for the added cost that would be passed on to me for Apple to support hacked iPhones.

Why do you not provide one explain of a company being forced to support a hacked product. There isn't an example. 

You wrote, "And how does that change monopoly practices? Bit of a flaky analogy you've chosen there! 

The point though is that should Apple have the right to effectively destroy products that customers have bought, just because Apple doesn't agree with how they're being used? If I sold someone a TV, would I have a right to go round their house and hit it with a hammer if they were to try and watch ITV on it? I think not!"

Now that is funny. The US government protects companies not consumers. Companies pay better. 

You write, "I'm hoping the US government will force Apple to unlock the iPhone and repair the phones that Apple broke."

>> Apple's socialist greedy business model

Wait... What? The cognitive dissonance of that statement makes my head hurt just looking at it.

Just in case you're confused, socialism is a state-run and managed economy (theoretically), and has little to do with returning a profit at all, which is quite polar opposite from Apple's business philosophies. I understand that you sometimes pull from "yer list of bad werds" to try and emphasize the effect of a statement, similar to how double negatives used to be used in the English language. However just like that it is logically incorrect.

Apple's iPhone strategy is very capitalist. They're looking for the way to maximize their profits for their shareholders, which as a publicly traded company is their duty. They are not a charity looking for the betterment of mankind, nor is any other publicly traded company, or the vast majority of privately traded companies. The Apple management has decided the best way of doing that over the long run is through rate sharing deals with service providers, and in a free market economy they are free to pursue their business ventures as they please. Unlike in a socialist state-run economy, the iPhone is not the one-and-only phone on the shelves. You do not have to buy an iPhone. Don't overinflate your ego by thinking that you're so important that it is their imperative to make sure you buy one.

Is bricking iPhones going too far? Yes. But no one bought an iPhone without knowing that it was tied to a contract with AT&T, without being informed that the only service it would work on is AT&T's.

What has not been mentioned is the simple fact that there is no monopoly. There are many providers of similar devices covering all carriers. Apple is not required by any laws to open their device to other carriers. Also not mentioned are the service agreements. Upon purchasing the phone the user AGREED to open service with AT&T. The user was notified in same agreement that using unauthorized software would void the warranty AND may damage the phone. There IS NO CASE! It is these same kind of frivolous lawsuits that clog up the US judicial system and distract them from actually reviewing cases with merit.

The reason the update bricked the phone is because of the method the phones were compromised. The update blocks these methods -which also represent a security issue.

I don't think the legality of unlocking a phone is in question. Do what you will with what you purchased.

If you're clever enough to hack -well, use someone else's hack- to unlock your phone, be clever enough to read the disclaimer, when you update it.

Don't blame the company for your ignorance.

Ok...

So last time I checked, noone forced anyone to buy the iPhone, or subscribe to AT&T's services. No one has a right to use the iPhone, and if you don't want to make use of the network that Apple designed the phone for, tough luck.

I dont believe however if the screen goes out and you have a modded iPhone, that your warranty would void. Radio modification has nothing to do with screen function.

I am sure Steve Jobs and Co. have thought the entire issue through, and are well aware of the DMCA passed by Congress.
From what I read in the "warning" release, Apple seemed to imply that third-party software, and the manner in which the phones were unlocked (modification of the OS) might render the phones "incompatible" the update 1.1.1. I'm sure they will be able to manufacture some story showing that the primary intention was not to brick phones, but to update the software, introduce iTunes Wi-Fi access, ya-da ya-da ya-da, and this update, combined with a MODIFIED OS, caused the phones to stop working.
Apple lawyers are amazing at winning in the courtroom.
I think the class members (owners of bricked phones) will have a hard time convincing a judge of their chaste and innocence in the matter - hence the jury trial.
No matter what, lawyers will get rich and iPhone ownders will get screwed.

Gotta go now. I aint got time for the jibba-jabber.

M$ 'bricked' my PC when they de-activated my unlicensed version of Vista! This came only a few years after they 'bricked' my unlicensed Windows XP box! They also refused service to my hacked XBox (and prevented hacked XBoxes from using XBox Live!)

I hate these 'socialist monopolies'! LOL! I deserve MILLIONS for my pain and suffering!

Apple will win...they warned people that installing the update might brick it if the software was hacked. I have yet to see another company that supports software (and the hardware it is running on) if it is hacked. If you want to hack it, go right ahead, but don't expect the company to be there for you and give you a new one when you screw it up, take some responsibility. 

Having previously worked in the cell phone industry, exclusive deals are nothing new. 

I guess the iphone fiasco is just getting annoying...if you don't like it, don't buy one. Settle for an iPod touch...but then again remember, if you hack that, it voids the warranty on that too. Apple isn't going to put work or money into your own mistakes.

The biased and usually emotionally driven logic being used by people who have an iphone, from what i've read so far, is flawed.

yes, apple can do whatever they want with their phones.
actions have every equal reaction.
sales have already slipped very quickly, even after the price hack. out of proportion to the initial decline of a mass release
and i'm sure they are quickly ringing up lawyer bills just preparing for everything.

techies who read news sites will most likely not buy an iphone.
the rest of the general populace will probably be unaffected .
by the time everything is done, the iphone will be long out of date a vogue