Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple, iPhone
Schiller on unlocked iPhones
The Associated Press managed to talk to Phil Schiller, Apple's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing, about Apple's recent announcement that hacked or unlocked iPhones might become expensive paperweights after an upcoming software update is applied to them. (The AP also quoted our very own Erica Sadun on the topic.)Phil says that this isn't about punishing people for unlocking their iPhones, but rather that the various iPhone unlocking apps have 'caused damage to the iPhone software' and that Apple can't be help responsible for what happens to a hacked iPhone.
I'm willing to believe that Apple isn't maliciously trying to brick iPhones that have been unlocked. It is far more probable that the update might, under certain circumstances, break your hacked iPhone and Apple doesn't want to spend the time fixing the update to play nice, and they don't want to have to pay for all the broken iPhones that may result.
That's my thought, but what say you, dear TUAW readers?
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Sidney said 10:38PM on 9-24-2007
I say I guess I've been spelling Erica's name wrong.
Reply
Rubbinz said 10:42PM on 9-24-2007
I have no problems with them not bending over backwards to not break an unlock. They do have an contractual obligation to ATT. I do however, have a problem with them voiding your warranty if you jailbreak your phone to install real applications that add additional value to the product. Steve heralded this as an "Internet device" yet left out one of the most used internet applications, the IM client.
Reply
geochick said 10:47PM on 9-24-2007
Lets face it Apple will release and continue to release updated wares for their various devices the iPhone being one of them. These updates will cause issues with hacks/ unlocks and the like that's the way it works and the way it will continue to work in the foreseeable future its the risks that "we" take when we unlock/hack software/hardware that's not supported by the vendor who created said hardware/software. Not saying that "we" should not unlock/hack our iPhones and such but we should always remember the RISKS involved in doing so and that the vendor will eventually find a way to plug render the unlock/hack useless. Hopefully "we" won't lose data in the process but there is not guarantee once you have violated that warranty.
Reply
3NA said 10:51PM on 9-24-2007
Agree wholeheartedly. Apple is surely aware that there is not as yet a way to jailbreak the latest firmware and yet they seem in no real hurry to deploy it. We've already seen that they have the capability to push updates over the air (as with the "send to gallery" addition, if I'm not mistaken) so despite the rhetoric, I'd have to say they're not eager to alienate their active hacker-base. Really, one wonders how long they can keep walking this tightrope until AT&T finally gets fed up with the highwire act?
Reply
courgette said 11:03PM on 9-24-2007
Clearly the jovial Mr Phil's qualifications are in sales & marketing rather than engineering.
Restoring the whole of the baseband firmware, rather than piecemeal patches, would both undo the unlock and prevent the iPhone becoming bricked. Apple has made a conscious choice to not do this.
The more technically minded people in the discussions over at Ars Technica are calling it for what it is. Schiller's comments are just marketing talk: obfuscation to mask a hostile action on the part of Apple.
They're not going to win any friends by doing things like this.
Reply
Tom said 11:05PM on 9-24-2007
I completely understand this and I don't blame Apple, nor do I think they are intentionally trying to destroy peoples phones. I personally have been waiting for an update to bring MMS support to the phone (call me crazy,) so I don't need to worry about it though.
I look at it this way, if you buy a car and decide to replace the headers on the engine, and all of a sudden your car overheats and the pistons get warped and crack the block, is that your fault or the car companies fault? I say it's your fault and by making aftermarket mods, you are voiding the warranty.
You can't hold a company responsible if they release an update for one of their products that you moddified which happens to break the thing altogether.
$.02
Reply
courgette said 11:07PM on 9-24-2007
@3NA, "We've already seen that they have the capability to push updates over the air (as with the "send to gallery" addition, if I'm not mistaken)"
Actually, that wasn't sent over the air. It was part of 1.0.2 and time-dalayed to become active after the release of iLife 08, when the user had an active .Mac account.
Reply
ryan said 11:09PM on 9-24-2007
I'm on the fence on this one. i can see apples view of not wanting to ensure compatibility, nor having to deal with a bunch of possible bricked phones. if you've hacked your phone, you've made a choice to deal with firmware updates by apple. people have their reasons for sim unlocking.
now on the application side, i really wish an official SDK would be realeased so people could take advantage of the iphone and ipod touch. This would would make sense as people would more likely adopt the platform, and you wouldn't have lots of people doing jailbreak for the apps. You know it is going to continue, an SDK makes sense.
tapping into developers could make a good product even better. people are so creative, it would be great to see what new innovations developers could come up with for the phone and touch
i don't have a iphone, waiting for a few releases, but do have an ipod touch and really would like to see more apps on there. it's kinda sad it has been crippled in it's current state.
Reply
courgette said 11:13PM on 9-24-2007
@Tom,
Poor analogy! It's more like:
Apple has clamped your wheels so you can't drive into Canada, because they have a deal where you can only buy gas from a US distributor.
If you remove the clamps, when you cross the border again your car will explode.
Reply
Gopi Flaherty said 11:19PM on 9-24-2007
"The more technically minded people in the discussions over at Ars Technica are calling it for what it is. Schiller's comments are just marketing talk: obfuscation to mask a hostile action on the part of Apple."
Which hostile action? Apple has not done anything yet, except for spread FUD. I would expect Apple to make all sorts of scary noises to make you be afraid about unlocking. That's safe and legal for them to do. Much safer than breaking iPhones, and almost as effective. They want everybody afraid of bricking, but they're unlikely to be vindictive enough to actually brick phones.
Reply
Jeff said 11:27PM on 9-24-2007
Phil is looking to get indicted. They violate the law by turning iphones into paper weights...read here:
http://www.genender.net/blog/2007/09/24/apple-better-watch-outdestroying-hacked-iphones-may-be-criminal/
Reply
Tim Dorr said 11:27PM on 9-24-2007
Yes, it would make perfect sense for a company to intentionally break a customer's product for doing something *explicitly legal* to it.
Apple likely ran the unlocker against the update they are going to release and found it broke it. So, to provide damage control for what will undoubtedly be a lot of broken iPhones, they have released these statements. And they are simply trying to point out the truth: You messed with your iPhone in a very dangerous way and it will likely break as a result of that. They don't put these warnings on the unlocking software for just any reason ;)
Reply
victor said 11:37PM on 9-24-2007
i totally agree with u
Reply
MacBookOwner said 11:42PM on 9-24-2007
"They're not going to win any friends by doing things like this"
Doing things like what? I'm looking forward to the iPhone update. If they fix my issue with Safari quitting, and give me an international keyboard option, and the wi-fi store works well, then they've made a friend here. :p
But, I'm not interested in "hacking" my iPhone. I think what people are doing is interesting, and some things (like the GPS-like triangulation thing) are very cool. I'm very happy with the Phone I bought, and I'm pretty happy and encouraged with the direction Apple seems to be heading with the iPhone (based on the the Touch and the Euro launch).
I hope Apple doesn't actively go after the hacking group-they seem to be having fun, and don't seem to be cutting into sales. But I also hope Apple doesn't waste a lot of development time trying to actively preserve the current line of hacks just to "win friends" :p
Reply
Andrew said 11:49PM on 9-24-2007
I don't own an iPhone, but I'm all for opening it up.
I don't think Apple should go out of their way to ensure that the hacks work or don't work. You did something to your iPhone, if it breaks - you should fix it. End of story.
HOWEVER, I do think Apple shouldn't go out of their way to close it up. The crap that's going on with encrypting the iPod Touch and newest gen iPod Classic and Nanos is a good example of what they *shouldn't* do on the next update.
Break it if you want to, or don't. It's your choice. Don't cry to Apple that your 3rd party hack doesn't work. But Apple shouldn't go out of their way to prevent your third party hack from working again, with the appropriate amount of work.
Reply
NW said 11:52PM on 9-24-2007
Apple is trying to play defense with that statement and it's going to get picked apart like the Chargers defense did in week 2 against the Patsies. The bottom line is the update process could easily erase the firmware and bring it to a clean/pristine state before updating there-by removing any 'damaged software' and preventing any bricks. No, if your phone bricks because of this update its something that Apple reasonably could have for-seen (they obviously are aware of the unlock) and easily prevented (simple pre-erase procedure).
Reply
chris said 12:04AM on 9-25-2007
Apple has been very forward about not wanting random hackers code within the iPhone ecosystem to ensure system & phone compatibility and end-user satisfaction.
Apple was encouraged by the 3rd party developer's initiative, but hasn't it recently been reported that the use of some of those applications degrades the overall product performance.
The initial use of cat & mouse by Apple indicates APPLE's position, much like their defense of the iTunes DRM, it is part of their duty as a bu$iness partner, be it a record label or AT&T. I'm sure AT&T's lawsuit would be much more costly than the supposed class action lawsuit (from iBricks) which insinuates that Apple will install the iBrick code unbeknowst to users, which probably isn't the case, it will come in the form of a software update which the owner's of unlocked iphones will greedily push the accept button to install just to see what new gem from apple will be installed upon the iPhone, all the while, knowing that they are already superior to apple since they relied upon an unsupported unlock code.
Every person that has unlocked their phone has been walking a tightrope, fully knowing the iPhone is a AT&T carrier exclusive, and everyone of those people took physical steps to go against that set-up, so why should APPLE have to spend ANY development money to ensure whatever sim unlock is kosher with future firmware updates?
It would seem to me that those that have unlocked their iPhone should not perform the apple software/firmware updates and rely upon the all-knowing hackers to reverse engineer whatever updates there are and await that development/deployment cycle... and surprisingly, i'll bet those hackers will then want a cut for their hardwork, because it will no longer be a game of who can do it first.
Additionally, when these hackers can install windows mobile on the iPhone, who will the bleeding hearts expect field their calls for support? APPLE as well as Microsoft?
Reply
Chris said 12:04AM on 9-25-2007
NW, not really. From what I understand Apple is releasing a software update, even though they call it firmware. The unlocking process actually flashes an individual component, and the Apple firmware update just thinks you have the regular firmware. Basically if the update breaks the unlock, people will need to go and flash the modem with the correct software and then reinstall the update. So it could break it, no guarantees.
Reply
Ben the Dog said 12:09AM on 9-25-2007
"Apple has clamped your wheels so you can't drive into Canada, because they have a deal where you can only buy gas from a US distributor.
If you remove the clamps, when you cross the border again your car will explode."
Yes - but you didn't have to buy that car. Plenty of cars on the market (for cheaper too) where you can buy gas over the border...
I think it's fair enough that Apple can say "Here is the update, it will work on a non-hacked iPhone. If you've tinkered under the hood, the bvggered if we know what it will do, but it could brick it." Certainly preferable to not warning people at all.
People seem to forget that except for where the updates fix known issues, Apple are under no obligation to provide you with updates to software (correct me if I'm wrong here though). Everyone knew that the iTunes connection would mean continuous updates, and everyone tinkering under the hood of an iPhone could potentially brick your phone (whether you ran updates or not). Apple's obligation is to ensure that the hardware works as advertised. If you decide to hack the software in such a way that the hardware can't function, I don't see why this is Apple's fault. Just don't update the phone using iTunes, ever. The software updates are put together on the basis that you have an iPhone with Apple-written software running on it. You can't expect them to produce updates that tip toe around your hacks.
Reply
chris said 12:13AM on 9-25-2007
@jeff: the blog of which you link to insinuates that APPLE will force the update agains the end-user's wishes, APPLE has yet to force me to push the Accept to install software update button.
And because this code could iBrick your unlocked iPhone to protect the corporate agreement between APPLE & AT&T and ensure the exclusiveness of the carrier agreement is also probably not realistic and APPLE is most likely legally bound to protect said agreement.
Reply