Possible Class Action vs Apple

[Barnes]

Lots of people hack the PSP and updates to it brick them all the time.

And Burninator:

Modders arrested

[greerb]

People are really stupid. How many months prior to the iPhone coming out that it was slated an AT&T exclusive for the next 2 years in the States? Quite a few IIRC. People have put Linux on thier ipods pretty much since the iPod was first introduced as with the Xbox. If some one wants to sure they tamper with the software, it is not under warrenty if the product is "Bricked". I laugh at alot of these lawsuits, people are just "reaching" trying to find a case.

[renny]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Personally, I don't think any company should be able to tell me what to do with a product after I purchase it. They shouldn't be able to apply future conditions on it. In the case of phones, even here in Canada they don't put any conditions on the phone, they just force you to purchase a contract when you get a phone. Hell, you can use the phone as a butt plug for as much as Telus or Rogers cares, as long as you fulfill the agreements of the contract.

MS is doing exactly this with the xbox360, they're telling you (after you purchase it), you will be banned from xbox live if you mod your xbox. You may say that at least your xbox isn't useless, IMHO it's just about useless if you can't play on live anymore, the machine is effectively crippled. At the end of the day, if you hacked your iphone or your 360 you're forcing the hardware to do something it was never intended to do (in this case the iphone was never intended to run on a non AT&T network) if it breaks, too bad so sad. Another example, if you modify your car with aftermarket parts and you blow your motor, do you think the manufacturer will replace your motor for you?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

In this case, I don't think Apple should be obligated to unlock the phone, but repairing to a previous or current firmware level seems reasonable to me. Apple should not be allowed to make a make a phone non-functional simply because they don't agree with how the customer is using it.

apple is not responsible for everything you do with your phone - especially when it comes to hacking/tampering. any changes applemade to it are compatible with how it shipped - you can't expect them to take not of all mods ever made and test compatibility with all of them. IIRC they warned people that tampering with it could cause problems with future firmware updates. People still hacked it - people still upgraded their firmware - they're SOL.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by renny

At the end of the day, if you hacked your iphone or your 360 you're forcing the hardware to do something it was never intended to do (in this case the iphone was never intended to run on a non AT&T network) if it breaks, too bad so sad.

So when the iPhone is released in Europe on O2, then those people should be SOL too, right?

The iPhone is intended to be used on a TDMA (GSM) communication system. Modifying the firmware so that it can be used on ANY GSM network not just AT&T is still not changing the intended purpose of the iPhone.

It's legal to unlock a phone from a certain provider.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by kermitology

And they should be allowed to do so.

It's the same with the new iPod's. They wouldn't support any other utility for loading songs other than iTunes. If I pay for it, I should be able to use it in any way I want.

That being said. Messing with firmware may have unexpected results. Firmware updates to messed with firmware should come with the expectation that it may break things.

You can use whatever you want but Apple wont support it.

MYK

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

You can use whatever you want but Apple wont support it.

MYK

My issue with Apple and what they've done with the iPod, is that they hadn't changed their database system for years. Now, all of a sudden, they've implemented a database method that is meant to break third party products you can use to manage your music. They want to force people to use iTunes. THAT is BS.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Barnes

And Burninator:

Modders arrested

Ah, but that is not Microsoft doing that, and unlocking an iPhone isn't illegal (as far as I know). But I guess the Xbox example isn't completely comparable to this situation.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by kermitology

My issue with Apple and what they've done with the iPod, is that they hadn't changed their database system for years. Now, all of a sudden, they've implemented a database method that is meant to break third party products you can use to manage your music. They want to force people to use iTunes. THAT is BS.

Apple tries to control the whole experience which is understandable from their perspective. Until now, they've never done anything to keep you from trying out different 3rd party solutions if you are, for example one of the people that need to know exactly where your Kenny Loggins collection is stored.

The past few days I have had a chance to think about what they where doing and soon realized that this is very unApple like. In fact it is very Sony, RIAA, Telcom like.

I was under the impression that this iPhone update would only affect unlocked and not jailbroken phones. They seem to have made 3rd party apps unusable. I was wrong and have since changed my stance. I don't like this direction at all.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by arsenal

And as Bobblehead posted, it is a law in the states, to allow the purchaser of a phone to use it on any network they wish.

Are we sure that applies here.

I was under the impression that was for full priced phones. The way carriers get around it is they dont offer the phone for sale full price but rather discounted via a plan.

If this lawsuit goes through it will mean bad mojo for companies who have strategic partnerships with other companies. As mused before, what if GM signed a exclusive deal with Shell that would maximize fuel efficiency more than others? Like the iPhone you would know the arrangement before purchasing, could you then sue for AntiTrust.

I personally thing the only way this case wins is if Apple puposefully put code to check for hacks and then brick them if hacked.

If they dont explicitly check for hacks and the phone bricks because of a part you added that Apple doesnt support, then I think they are SOL. I hope Apple wins this case.

As with all successfuly companies in the US, as soon as you start raking in the profits the shark lawyer come after you.

It shouldbe free market that decides this, if the market doesnt like the arrangement then the the iPhone wont sell. Its not like AntiTrust applies because Apple doesnt own the cellphone market.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Ah, but that is not Microsoft doing that, and unlocking an iPhone isn't illegal (as far as I know). But I guess the Xbox example isn't completely comparable to this situation.

I know, it's just a case of "things could be worse".

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Apple tries to control the whole experience which is understandable from their perspective. Until now, they've never done anything to keep you from trying out different 3rd party solutions if you are, for example one of the people that need to know exactly where your Kenny Loggins collection is stored.

I don't maintain my music on my computer.. Which is why I prefer to have complete control over how I manage music on my iPod.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Are we sure that applies here.

I was under the impression that was for full priced phones. The way carriers get around it is they dont offer the phone for sale full price but rather discounted via a plan.

If this lawsuit goes through it will mean bad mojo for companies who have strategic partnerships with other companies. As mused before, what if GM signed a exclusive deal with Shell that would maximize fuel efficiency more than others? Like the iPhone you would know the arrangement before purchasing, could you then sue for AntiTrust.

I personally thing the only way this case wins is if Apple puposefully put code to check for hacks and then brick them if hacked.

If they dont explicitly check for hacks and the phone bricks because of a part you added that Apple doesnt support, then I think they are SOL. I hope Apple wins this case.

As with all successfuly companies in the US, as soon as you start raking in the profits the shark lawyer come after you.

It shouldbe free market that decides this, if the market doesnt like the arrangement then the the iPhone wont sell. Its not like AntiTrust applies because Apple doesnt own the cellphone market.

It doesn't matter what you pay, you can unlock your phone. But if you didn't pay full price then you probably had to purchase a contract. You can do whatever you want with the phone as long as you fulfill the contract.

If Apple is is willing to use the legal system to enforce their patents then they shouldn't be surprised that they also need to follow anti-trust rules.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I don't maintain my music on my computer.. Which is why I prefer to have complete control over how I manage music on my iPod.

Off topic. But how do you do that? I am not an iTunes fan, even on my new computer it runs rather poorly.

[CubicleGeek]

Much like my speculation of why MS can't brick your modded xbox and are rather forced to ban you from Live! as their means, I think people here are getting carried away by a speculation that Apple is deliberately bricking phones. For all we know, the hacked firmware is causing problems updating to a later version.

Until I see a section of code that reads somewhat like this:

if (firmware == hacked) brickThePhone();
else runUpdate();

I am not convinced that it is deliberate. As mentioned earlier by another poster, some people running hacked PSPs end up bricking their device when they run a legit game which forces a firmware upgrade. More often than not it just updates to the new firmware effectively erasing the hacked BIOS. It really is hack at your own risk.

Also, regardless of how one may try to justify one's ability to do anything you want to a device you own, just simply loading hacked firmware is illegal because it breaches the intellectual property and copyright laws. Someone had to reverse engineer the product in order for them to get then modify copyrighted material, which is illegal. Simply by knowingly loading this firmware in makes that individual an accessory to criminal behaviour.

At the end of the day we're discussing a moral dilemma here and not a legal one. I really don't think legally, Apple has to do anything.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Off topic. But how do you do that? I am not an iTunes fan, even on my new computer it runs rather poorly.

I use sharepod. HOWEVER, I recently updated to version 3.5 and it wouldn't work with my iPod. I had to revert to 3.3 which I found somewhere on the internet.

[Bobblehead]

Well, one thing to consider is that XBox is a viable stand alone game system. I believe the reason MS kicks people off XBox live for modding is that modding can often result in cheating, and condoning cheating in a online game is a quick way to lose your client base.

On the other side, in the U.S. modding your XBox is illegal under the DMCA anti-circumvention rules. Cell phones were specifically exempted from this provision.

[FanIn80]

I don't get it... Microsoft is sued by everyone and their Grandma for Anti-Trust issues because they dared to ship Windows with it's own integrated internet browser and java environment... even though everyone was completely free to install whatever browser and java environment they wanted to after they bought it.

Yet, Apple is forcing everyone to only use iTunes with their iPods and to only connect to AT&T with their iPhones, but people are treating them like frickin heroes?

Microsoft may have created the worst internet browser in the history of mankind and then pre-installed it on your operating system, but I have yet to hear of a single patch from Windows Update that physically renders your computer's internal hardware completely unusable just because you installed Firefox or Opera or the Java JRE from Sun.

Perspective, people. It's not just a twenty-seven syllable word.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I don't get it... Microsoft is sued by everyone and their Grandma for Anti-Trust issues because they dared to ship Windows with it's own integrated internet browser and java environment... even though everyone was completely free to install whatever browser and java environment they wanted to after they bought it.

Yet, Apple is forcing everyone to only use iTunes with their iPods and to only connect to AT&T with their iPhones, but people are treating them like frickin heroes?

Microsoft may have created the worst internet browser in the history of mankind and then pre-installed it on your operating system, but I have yet to hear of a single patch from Windows Update that physically renders your computer's internal hardware completely unusable just because you installed Firefox or Opera or the Java JRE from Sun.

Perspective, people. It's not just a twenty-seven syllable word.

I thought about this, but then decided it could easily be dismissed in court as you don't need to purchase an iPhone. You can choose any other carrier as well as any other phone. In that sense, it isn't anti-trust.

I guess there could be a case made for users of an iPhone are getting forced to use certain software, certain carrier, etc. I am not sure if it could be a full on anti-trust case, but it is a different perspective on anti-trust laws.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by arsenal

I thought about this, but then decided it could easily be dismissed in court as you don't need to purchase an iPhone. You can choose any other carrier as well as any other phone. In that sense, it isn't anti-trust.

But at the same time.. You don't HAVE to use IE. You don't HAVE to install Windows if you don't want to.