iPhOWNED pt 2

245678

Posts

  • DefunkerDefunker Registered User
    edited September 2007
    Option A: Piss of their buisness partner, AT&T. Get sued if they do nothing.

    Option B: Fuck over the people who are potentally fucking them (Apple) over.

    Defunker on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AphostileAphostile Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I'm really completely confused that anyone could say that Apple is in the wrong for doing this.

    You are installing unsupported software that is KNOWN to violate your terms of service and change the internal workings of your technological product. You do not DESERVE to have it work correctly if they make bug fixes, change their software or really do anything. You gave up that right when you attempted to change it.

    Aphostile on
    Tinychat is dead. Long live Tinychat. D3 BTag: Aphostile#1366 : Steam - ADD ME JERKS : | Xbox Live : LastAphostile | PS4 : Aphostile
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The US Copyright Office has put forth a specific exemption to the DMCA to allow everyone to unlock their cell phones without fear of legal action. No other company is bricking or deactivating phones that have been unlocked.

    Yeah, unfortunately this gives us no protection in this case, as it merely voids the warranty, Apple's not trying to sue any of their customers for unlocking.

    I definitely confirmed that if you have the 3rd party applications, you can update fine and the phone works perfectly, but the apps are erased and you can't put them back on the phone(yet).

    Septus on
    PSN: Kurahoshi1
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Apple's entire fortune lies on absolute control of both hardware and software; if they let people muck about with this equation, their near-legendary quality could be undermined.

    Not that hacking an iPhone would lead to a decline in quality for all customers, but it opens doors to a drop in perception of quality across the board. It flies in the face of Apple's entire business model to let people unbundle hardware, software, contract, and entire vertical solution.

    This whole deal really shouldn't surprise anyone. It's also not evil in the least; protecting their business in a fashion that was already declared.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Yeah how dare you use your phone for what you want it to do.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah how dare you use your phone for what you want it to do.

    Sure, you can, just without the software Apple provided.

    edit: and/or without the network they gave you access to with the software they provided.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Herby wrote: »
    I doubt it's all Apples doings. There's probably some clause in their AT&T contract saying that they guarantee the security and unhackability of the iPhone and they have no choice but to act on it.

    That's right, he only hits you because he loves you.

    Evander on
  • ROFISHROFISH AnehiixiiRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I'm with the fuck ATT and RIAA crowd. (It's RIAA's fault ringtones cost extra. :( ) Things wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for Apple's bad choice in partners. The iTouch is getting as much crap as the iPhone mostly because they're practically the same and hacking iPhone == no bueno senor.

    But the chip thing for video-out on the iPod classic was pretty dickish though.

    ROFISH on
    sig3.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    For the record, to every Apple apologist who is trying to blame AT&T on this one by invoking "the contract", Apple DID agree to ALL terms on that contract, and let's be honest here, AT&T was not the one with the upper hand in those negotiations, because the iPhone would have sold on ANY carrier. There is no reason whythere would be ANYTHING in that contract that Apple did not want in there.



    Apple is the same as every other corporation out there. He isn't your buddy "Stevie", it's "Mr. Jobs" to you.

    Evander on
  • ROFISHROFISH AnehiixiiRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    For the record, to every Apple apologist who is trying to blame AT&T on this one by invoking "the contract", Apple DID agree to ALL terms on that contract, and let's be honest here, AT&T was not the one with the upper hand in those negotiations, because the iPhone would have sold on ANY carrier.

    Well GSM would have made it a lot easier to have one design for the whole world, and the only two GSM carriers in the US are ATT and T-Mobile. Apple asked T-Mobile first and they said no.

    That said, I do miss some of the third-party applications. My favorite was one that used the 911 triangulation to pinpoint your location with the Google Map. It's like GPS! :D

    ROFISH on
    sig3.png
  • OptimusWangOptimusWang Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah how dare you use your phone for what you want it to do.

    You can do whatever you want with it, just be prepared to deal with the consenquences.

    It's the same as cracking open an Xbox to mod it - the 99% of us who don't go tinkering with our shit don't care that you bricked it, and neither does the company.

    e:
    ROFISH wrote: »
    Well GSM would have made it a lot easier to have one design for the whole world, and the only two GSM carriers in the US are ATT and T-Mobile. Apple asked T-Mobile first and they said no.

    That's because Cingular (before it was AT&T) got burned pretty badly by the first iTunes phone, which was a horrible loss iirc.

    vvvv Hey dude, up here is your answer.

    OptimusWang on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    ROFISH wrote: »
    Well GSM would have made it a lot easier to have one design for the whole world, and the only two GSM carriers in the US are ATT and T-Mobile. Apple asked T-Mobile first and they said no.

    It's not like they were doing a world-wide launch, though. They inevitable plan to branch out to CDMA networks, so they could just as easily started on that side too.



    Why was it that T-Mobile said no? Apple wanted a ten gallon moneyhat?

    Evander on
  • PhishPhanpaPhishPhanpa Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    look people, this does make apple evil, let the people who hacked their iphones deal with the consequences by themselves, you don't have to disable the phone

    PhishPhanpa on
    phished.png
  • AxonAxon Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    For the record, to every Apple apologist who is trying to blame AT&T on this one by invoking "the contract", Apple DID agree to ALL terms on that contract, and let's be honest here, AT&T was not the one with the upper hand in those negotiations, because the iPhone would have sold on ANY carrier. There is no reason whythere would be ANYTHING in that contract that Apple did not want in there.

    Apple is the same as every other corporation out there. He isn't your buddy "Stevie", it's "Mr. Jobs" to you.

    Agreed. Apple was the one with the leverage. It was well known the Iphone was going to be a tremendous success. AT&T probably shelled out megabucks to get that exclusive deal.

    Now, as for end-users hacking and using other cell phone carriers, that's not Apple's fault. Does that mean AT&T wouldn't win out on a tortious interference/breach theory? I'd have to see the contract, but I'd say AT&T would have a shot, for sure.

    Anyway, someone mentioned it before, and I'm not sure if these people had a choice here, but: never DL an official update on a hacked machine.

    Axon on
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    look people, this does make apple evil, let the people who hacked their iphones deal with the consequences by themselves, you don't have to disable the phone

    Not in the least. They're not disabling phones. They're removing their software for which the license terms were violated, as per guidelines given to every single customer when they bought the product.

    It's not evil, it's not a surprise, and it's not anything other than exactly what they said they'd do.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    It's just bullshit really.

    Apple sells you a phone for $600 (yes, I know it's less now) and forces you into a year long contract with AT&T to get any sort of use out of the phone. So, not only are you being forced into a service provider for a year with now subsidization, but they were obviously selling the Iphone for FAR, FAR more then what it cost them to make it, as evidenced by the fact they shaved $200 off so quickly and then handed out $100 rebates that were actually easy to redeem.

    I don't know, I just see the Iphone as apples big "Fuck You" to the world.

    Inquisitor on
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Morskittar wrote: »
    look people, this does make apple evil, let the people who hacked their iphones deal with the consequences by themselves, you don't have to disable the phone

    Not in the least. They're not disabling phones. They're removing their software for which the license terms were violated, as per guidelines given to every single customer when they bought the product.

    It's not evil, it's not a surprise, and it's not anything other than exactly what they said they'd do.

    From the OP:

    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    Inquisitor on
  • OptimusWangOptimusWang Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    look people, this does make apple evil, let the people who hacked their iphones deal with the consequences by themselves, you don't have to disable the phone

    Not in the least. They're not disabling phones. They're removing their software for which the license terms were violated, as per guidelines given to every single customer when they bought the product.

    It's not evil, it's not a surprise, and it's not anything other than exactly what they said they'd do.

    From the OP:

    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    Nice job on removing the word "likely" from the OP :v:

    Anyway, lime'd the important part.

    OptimusWang on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    It's just bullshit really.

    Apple sells you a phone for $600 (yes, I know it's less now) and forces you into a year long contract with AT&T to get any sort of use out of the phone. So, not only are you being forced into a service provider for a year with now subsidization, but they were obviously selling the Iphone for FAR, FAR more then what it cost them to make it, as evidenced by the fact they shaved $200 off so quickly and then handed out $100 rebates that were actually easy to redeem.

    I don't know, I just see the Iphone as apples big "Fuck You" to the world.

    Wait.

    People weren't aware, from the moment it was announced, that the iPhone carried a profit margin of $texas?



    ALL of the iPod products have been horribly over priced. This has been one of my largest issues with the brand, that it has artificially kept the price of the mp3 player market highr than it really should be.



    No, of course Apple isn't evil, but they also have no qualms about abusing consumers' brand loyalty to them in order to leverage an unfair ammount of control over an entire market.



    Apple is no more evil than Microsoft was when they bundled IE with Windows.

    Evander on
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    look people, this does make apple evil, let the people who hacked their iphones deal with the consequences by themselves, you don't have to disable the phone

    Not in the least. They're not disabling phones. They're removing their software for which the license terms were violated, as per guidelines given to every single customer when they bought the product.

    It's not evil, it's not a surprise, and it's not anything other than exactly what they said they'd do.

    From the OP:

    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    Are you saying this is a change from the original EULA? Not from what I can tell. If you modifiy the software, they can make you cease using it. It's pretty explicit.

    How is their statement from earlier this week a change from that?

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    look people, this does make apple evil, let the people who hacked their iphones deal with the consequences by themselves, you don't have to disable the phone

    Not in the least. They're not disabling phones. They're removing their software for which the license terms were violated, as per guidelines given to every single customer when they bought the product.

    It's not evil, it's not a surprise, and it's not anything other than exactly what they said they'd do.

    From the OP:

    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    Nice job on removing the word "likely" from the OP :v:

    Actually, this is the quote from the OP.
    The BBC wrote:
    Apple iPhone warning proves true

    An Apple software update is disabling iPhones that have been unlocked by owners who wanted to choose which mobile network to use.

    Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable".

    Thousands of iPhone owners hacked their expensive gadget in order to unlock it for use with other mobile carriers and to run a host of unsupported programs.

    There are also reports of the update causing issues with unaltered iPhones.

    On Monday Apple issued a statement in which it said many of the unauthorised iPhone unlocking programs caused "irreparable damage" to the device's software.

    The company said this would "likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed".

    That warning has now proved correct as many owners are reporting their phones no longer work following installation of the update.

    Apple requires iPhone owners to take out a lengthy contract with AT&T in the United States but there are a number of programs on the net that unlock the device for use with other networks.

    Some owners are reporting on technology blogs and Apple's own forums that the update is deleting contacts information, as well as photos and music, on iPhones that have not been modified in any way.

    The first bolded line is the line I quoted. And, if you can read, you will see that there are no alterations, at all.

    Notice that the first line, and the line with likely on it are from different statements from Apple, at least according to the article.

    Also: "That warning has now proved correct as many owners are reporting their phones no longer work following installation of the update."

    From the article pretty much validates the fact that yes, software isn't just getting removed, phones are getting bricked.

    But honestly, I can't expect much from someone who limes posts...

    Inquisitor on
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    That's still not anything different than the EULA says. Violation can lead to "damages".

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    look people, this does make apple evil, let the people who hacked their iphones deal with the consequences by themselves, you don't have to disable the phone

    Not in the least. They're not disabling phones. They're removing their software for which the license terms were violated, as per guidelines given to every single customer when they bought the product.

    It's not evil, it's not a surprise, and it's not anything other than exactly what they said they'd do.

    From the OP:

    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    Are you saying this is a change from the original EULA? Not from what I can tell. If you modifiy the software, they can make you cease using it. It's pretty explicit.

    How is their statement from earlier this week a change from that?

    The reading comprehension comment was directed mainly at the fact that you said "They are not disabling phones" when apparently, it is quite clear that they are.

    I have no clue what the EULA for the Iphone is, because I've never considered buying one. And sure, it's in apples rights to make you cease using the phone if you modify their software. But bricking people's six hundred dollar phones seems pretty harsh to me.

    Evander: Yeah, anyone with half a brain knows that the iphone, and the ipod are rip offs. Hell, everything apple sells is a rip off, which is the main reason I don't buy apple products.

    Inquisitor on
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2007
    What about the part where people that didn't do anything to the phones are losing important data?

    Goomba on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    look people, this does make apple evil, let the people who hacked their iphones deal with the consequences by themselves, you don't have to disable the phone

    Not in the least. They're not disabling phones. They're removing their software for which the license terms were violated, as per guidelines given to every single customer when they bought the product.

    It's not evil, it's not a surprise, and it's not anything other than exactly what they said they'd do.

    From the OP:

    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    Are you saying this is a change from the original EULA? Not from what I can tell. If you modifiy the software, they can make you cease using it. It's pretty explicit.

    How is their statement from earlier this week a change from that?

    The reading comprehension comment was directed mainly at the fact that you said "They are not disabling phones" when apparently, it is quite clear that they are.

    I have no clue what the EULA for the Iphone is, because I've never considered buying one. And sure, it's in apples rights to make you cease using the phone if you modify their software. But bricking people's six hundred dollar phones seems pretty harsh to me.

    Evander: Yeah, anyone with half a brain knows that the iphone, and the ipod are rip offs. Hell, everything apple sells is a rip off, which is the main reason I don't buy apple products.

    Fair enough, though I interpreted "disabled" and "inoperative" as "not funcitioning because the software is blown up" and "permanently inoperable because no legal software exists for it". I seriously doubt the devices themselves are melting. I'd bet a bricked iPhone could have open source software written for it.

    edit: Yeah, Goomba. That's bullshit. Doesn't make them evil, though, just releasing bad code.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Goomba don't ignore the facts here, those people were storing data on their phone. Apple has a contract with ATAT that says that data can only be stored on the phone that they approve. Their hands are tied.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • OptimusWangOptimusWang Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    You wrote:
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    What Apple actually said was:
    The company said this would "likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed".

    There's a huge difference there, and anyone who can't differentiate between the two statements has no business slighting anyone's reading comprehension.

    Regardless, I'll reiterate the fact that the public at large doesn't give two shits about the ~.5% of iPhone owners this effects. It's only those howling with nerd rage that give a damn, and most of those don't even own one.

    OptimusWang on
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Goomba wrote: »
    What about the part where people that didn't do anything to the phones are losing important data?
    I hadn't heard about this. It sounded like all un-hacked iPhones have so far taken to the 1.1.1 update very well.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    You wrote:
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    What Apple actually said was:
    The company said this would "likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed".

    There's a huge difference there, and anyone who can't differentiate between the two statements has no business slighting anyone's reading comprehension.

    Regardless, I'll reiterate the fact that the public at large doesn't give two shits about the ~.5% of iPhone owners this effects. It's only those howling with nerd rage that give a damn, and most of those don't even own one.

    Are you being fucking obtuse just to be annoying? Or are you really that bad at reading?

    The quote from the article has two, TWO separate statements from apple.

    One is this: "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"

    One was this: The company said this would "likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed".

    Apple said both. Now stop accusing me of altering quotes, you little shit.

    Inquisitor on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Preacher wrote: »
    Goomba don't ignore the facts here, those people were storing data on their phone. Apple has a contract with ATAT that says that data can only be stored on the phone that they approve. Their hands are tied.

    If only they had gone with ATST there

    no back end to worry about

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    ITT: Inquisitor flips out

    Evander on
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    ITT: Inquisitor flips out

    I think he made a reasonable assumption. It's still an assumption though.

    From a legal perspective, removing the software from the device does mean it's "permanently inoperable". Technically, you just need new software.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    ITT: Inquisitor flips out

    Being accused of things you didn't do is always annoying.

    Besides, being exaggeratedly angry on the internet is both fun and easy!

    Inquisitor on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Well, there go my plans for buying a MacBook Pro.

    I'm now left with the vague suspicion they might set it to burst into flames when I install Ubuntu on it.

    japan on
  • OptimusWangOptimusWang Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    You wrote:
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"."

    So, how's that reading comprehension working out for you?

    What Apple actually said was:
    The company said this would "likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed".

    There's a huge difference there, and anyone who can't differentiate between the two statements has no business slighting anyone's reading comprehension.

    Regardless, I'll reiterate the fact that the public at large doesn't give two shits about the ~.5% of iPhone owners this effects. It's only those howling with nerd rage that give a damn, and most of those don't even own one.

    Are you being fucking obtuse just to be annoying? Or are you really that bad at reading?

    The quote from the article has two, TWO separate statements from apple.

    One is this: "Earlier this week Apple said a planned update would leave the device "permanently inoperable"

    One was this: The company said this would "likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed".

    Apple said both. Now stop accusing me of altering quotes, you little shit.

    No, Apple said the second one; what you used was BBC paraphrasing the original Apple quote. I'm guessing you don't know anything about press releases or how they're written?

    Edit: See how the BBC quote has "permanently inoperable" in quotes? That's how you know they're paraphrasing.

    OptimusWang on
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Goomba don't ignore the facts here, those people were storing data on their phone. Apple has a contract with ATAT that says that data can only be stored on the phone that they approve. Their hands are tied.

    If only they had gone with ATST there

    no back end to worry about


    goddammit evander.. I just spit water all over my keyboard....

    amateurhour on

    Arch wrote: »

    I never expected this burn from captain bushmeat
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    This isn't apple being 'evil', this is a bunch of customers being 'retarded'. Everyone knew beforehand that a) they'd need an at&t contract to get an iPhone, b) apple would release updates for it, as they are wont to do, which would be designed towards *surprise* working on the at&t network.

    I don't have a problem with people wanting to hack their devices, but you should have realized beforehand that you'd have to deal with the consequences.

    Now, as far as legitimate customer's shit not working, that's pretty lame - but I somehow doubt that it was on purpose. I'm guessing that it will be fixed in a later update.

    SageinaRage on
  • NrthstarNrthstar Registered User
    edited September 2007
    It's not surprising. I mean Apple has been known as the unhacked system now for years. Mac's have been the "safe" computer since there are almost no virus attacks. But now their ego has been challenged, they've been hacked, so their response isn't all that surprising.

    Nrthstar on
    "Shut up and Die"
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Goomba don't ignore the facts here, those people were storing data on their phone. Apple has a contract with ATAT that says that data can only be stored on the phone that they approve. Their hands are tied.

    If only they had gone with ATST there

    no back end to worry about


    goddammit evander.. I just spit water all over my keyboard....

    ATPT is where its at anyway.

    Cause they look ridiculous.

    Inquisitor on
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Oh noes! Apple updates the firmware and doesn't accommodate folks who have hacked their hardware!?

    Colour me fucking shocked. Get a grip people - if you're installing custom firmware don't be god damn well surprised when you install an official update and things go to hell. Why should Apple have to code circles around your bullshit?

    Will I get an iPhone? Yes. Will I hack it? Probably. Will I be stupid enough to allow iTunes to update the fucker? No.

    Anyone who does is borderline retarded. Anyone who's outraged about this falls under the same category.

    Threepio on
    142.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.