Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iPhone
NYT on unlocking phones
Here's a quick link over to today's New York Times article on phone unlocking, which raises a couple of interesting (not to say off-base) points. First, Nokia claims that the current "Open to Anything" ad campaign is not directly aimed at the iPhone... right.Second, writer Cyrus Farivar characterizes the 1.11 bricking situation thusly:
Apple has tried to thwart the practice [of unlocking] by updating the operating system software, which rendered any updated and unlocked phone useless. But rogue programmers were quickly back at it, and they say they have created software that makes it possible to break the newly updated software lock on the iPhone...
This has been discussed in various venues, but in my humble opinion the 1.11 update was in all likelihood not a deliberate attempt to disable phones; rather, the brickage was an unfortunate side effect. Farivar's phrasing implies an intent on Apple's part to "render phones useless" that may not have been there.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rubbinz said 4:25PM on 11-01-2007
Given Apple's latest refusal to accept legal currency for the iPhone, and Jobs' "cat and mouse" statement I'd reckon that there was indeed intent on Apple's part. So yeah, I agree with his wording.
Reply
Damian said 4:29PM on 11-01-2007
Nokia is going to target the cell phone manufacturer that has less than 1% market share directly. Right. It's like they say - on Internet everything looks bigger.
Reply
Fritz Laurel said 4:43PM on 11-01-2007
I also agree with is wording. Apple's predetory practices as of late allow me no other conclusion.
And, I believe such intentional adversarial motives have been discussed by people like Andrew Welch on this very blog.
I appreciate you wanting to wave to flag (as I like to do from time to time), Michael, but in this case I think you are simply caught in the RDF.
Cheers,
FL
Reply
basscadet said 5:00PM on 11-01-2007
I too agree that the bricking is intentional (if it wasn't, they would be unbricking the ones brought to an Apple store). However, they did warn people, they have it all written up in their TOS, and they can very well do whatever they want as long as it's legal. Problem is, Apple users are slowly realizing that Apple is not a non-profit bunch of samaritans but a corporation governed by stock holders and that could hurt Apple sometime in the future. But intentional it is 100%, as is the whole "it's our way or the highway" attitude about obsessive control over what goes inside.
Reply
Michael Rose said 5:01PM on 11-01-2007
Fritz, I don't disagree with Andrew @ Ambrosia that there were deliberate efforts made to disable third-party apps, nor that Apple's relationship with AT&T requires it to make all reasonable efforts against unlocking. My point is that the bricking itself (which the author seems to be talking about) may not have been an intentional outcome of the 1.11 update, but rather an unintentional but (by Apple, anyway) predictable result of problems with the AnySIM unlock or other unlocking procedures.
The question is one of indifference vs. hostility. I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I don't believe that Apple deliberately chose to disable thousands of devices as a punitive measure.
Reply
John Coxon said 5:10PM on 11-01-2007
I concur with Michael. It wouldn't make any sense to alienate the fanbase - it'd reduce faith in the brand, and reduce sales as a result. From a commercial point of view, a deliberate bricking is nonsensical.
Reply
iDarbert said 5:09PM on 11-01-2007
If Apple wanted to intentionally brick unlocked iPhones they should've targeted iPhoneSimFree too - that didn't brick it... it was just "vanished" after the update.
As fort third party apps are probably another another story, my guess is they were just trying to make the software a little less, pardon the term, "vulnerable".
But anyway, Steve Jobs was clear on that, even if I think he ended up saying something insanely ridicolous about third party apps bringing down the AT&T network it was pretty clear they didn't want any native apps... yet.
Reply
Billy K said 5:17PM on 11-01-2007
Well, it's Conventional Wisdom now that Apple "broke" peoples' iPhones for whatever reason. I've talked to many, many people who believe this now, even if they don't know any actual facts. What sucks is this misinformation was mostly generated by Apple fans.
Congrats, unlocking zealots. You've given Apple a big ol' PR black eye for no reason other than your own self-interest. Next time you want to throw a fit, Isuggest you aim bigger and start a rumor that MacBooks will kill your family in their sleep.
Reply
Jt Hollister said 6:01PM on 11-01-2007
Well, the unlock software was obviously thrown together quite quickly. There was little to no testing, and I can't imagine it was anywhere close to bug-free. By no means am I suggesting that the iPhone Dev team are bad programmers, it's just they wanted to get unlocks to the public as fast as possible. The code was rather shaky to begin with, and Apple's update pushed it over the edge. Apple couldn't afford to go out of their way to make sure it DIDN'T break jailbroken iPhones (when the unlocking was already costing them a lot of dough). They made sure everyone knew though, and yet, some fools still installed the upgrade, being well forewarned that it would brick their phone. Some people are beyond me!
Reply
Fritz Laurel said 8:53PM on 11-01-2007
Michael -- I understand, and appreciate your position. But, I still disagree with you.
Sure, I agree there's a stretch in linking deliberately broken apps with a presumed deliberateness in bricking phones, but it doesn't require that big of a leap for me. I can understand people not wanting to believe this is true, because of the crumbling house of cards that would result, but I'm actually kind of osmotically drawn to it, all things being equal.
Furthermore, I do not accept responsibility for giving Apple "a big ol' PR black eye" because of my beliefs. There are a lot of smart people who work at Apple. If they want to avoid bad press, they know how to do it.
To quote our great president, "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... cain't get fooled again!" Fear (of getting burned, in this case) is a much stronger motivator than pleasure (of having the latest & greatest, in this case).
Cheers,
FL
Reply
Jt Hollister said 9:19PM on 11-01-2007
There's no motive. There's no reason for Apple to brick phones. They already lost the money from AT&T, and they're not getting it back if they break someone's phone. They're just going to piss people off.
People, Apple is a very smart company. They know how to do business. Bricking peoples' products is NOT how you do business, and it is most certainly no evidence that Apple has done this.
No one has presented a motive, nor any evidence whatsoever that Apple did this on purpose. It's just everyone's "hunch". I can see how you could possibly think that, but a few seconds of thinking logically should dismiss any such possibility entirely.
Moreoever, for the NYT to come out with an article that states this ridiculous theory as a FACT is SLANDER and EXTREMELY illegal. This reporter ought to be locked up for 5-10.
Reply
Michael Rose said 10:09PM on 11-01-2007
Hi Fritz:
I respect your position. We can both look at the available evidence of Apple's actions and motives, with judgement intact, and come to different conclusions. My concern is not with what you believe, or with what the Times reporter believes, but with the article's expression of certainty.
If the NYT has technical evidence, internal memos, a policy statement, or emails from Steve Jobs saying "Nuke the freakin' neckbeard hackers!" that lead to the conclusion of fact that Apple deliberately and specifically chose to disable unlocked phones, then fine. If such proof is not in hand (and I will bet my imaginary iPhone that it ain't), the article is needlessly inflammatory.
A simple "is believed to have" qualifier would have cast the statement in a different light. It's inarguable that Apple is believed to have created an upgrade that deliberately disabled unlocked phones -- we have evidence here that many people do believe that. It's speculative to say that Apple created an update that was designed and intended to disable unlocked phones, and without evidence of motive I think it's irresponsible of the "paper of record" to contribute to an atmosphere of blame.
(On a side note, I want to thank everyone so far for the relative lack of rancor in the post comments, not always the case when it comes to iPhone stories... :-)
Reply
Rubbinz said 10:35PM on 11-01-2007
Michael, Steve Jobs saying "Nuke the freakin' neckbeard hackers!" would be, to me, malicious intent. Far and away from what I consider Apple's intent. When I say I believe that there was intent on Apple's part, I'm not saying that it was malicious.
I believe that the intent is being pressured upon Apple by AT&T over subscriber loss. We have Job's on record with the "cat and mouse" statement about stopping unlockers and jailbreakers. We have an Apple statement giving fair warning that they'll be bricking modified iPhones. So, the "intent" to stop these people really isn't an issue, it's pretty much fact. But was it malicious? To me, no.
Reply
Frank said 11:01PM on 11-01-2007
Umm, this is the NYT we're talking about here... everything they write is slanted and biased.
Reply
rawhead said 11:38PM on 11-01-2007
Fritz,
You don't need to look no further than former members of the iPhone Dev Team to see that the bricking was solely the fault of the AnySIM (et al) coding itself.
Reply
Fritz Laurel said 12:12AM on 11-02-2007
Michael -- "Nuke the freakin' neckbeard hackers!" - lol. Nice ;)
>My concern is not with what you believe, or with what the
>Times reporter believes, but with the article's expression
>of certainty.
Got it. And on that, I totally agree. :D
Cheers,
FL
Reply
WiFone said 6:14AM on 11-02-2007
@#11./Jt Hollister: you should rather get 20 to life for not understanding that free beer is good, but free speech is even better. Even if a statement proven to be false would qualify as slander, it would rather make a cause for civil action - and Apple's got enough lawyers to sue NYT if they wanted to - than a criminal offense to be prosecuted and thereby diverting away resources from addressing what I and most sane people would consider more harmful crimes. Motive, evidence, bla bla: you just may have been watching too many episodes of Law & Order. Please go get yourself a law degree before you post 'FACTS' which are NONSENSE and EXTREMELY ignorant. Thanks but no thanks for your legal advice.
Reply