It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apple Warns Hacking iPhone May Harm It

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   



I'm not entirely sure if Apple even permits the units to be unlocked at all.


Hense my animosity against the hackers, its illegal and Apple will take the blame from AT&T for the Hackers' actions.



Then again, you would have to have them unlocked if you wanted to travel overseas with it. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to use any other providers with it.


Well that should be taken into account when the phone is purchased, shouldnt it?

One of its downsides?



I remember working with HP's iPaqs. The cellular companies would only allow our customers to unlock the locked versions if they said they were leaving the country. Otherwise the unlock codes would never be given out.


Is this part of Apples idea? Or is it completly unlockable?



Aren't allowed to physically educate their children, lol, I laughed when I saw that one. I completely agree with you there.


I aim to please
*does little dance*

But again, is it bad to have AT&T as a browser?




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus

Yes there is, Apple is going to take the blame for it, arnt they?

Thats unfair for them.

No its not, maybe they shouldnt have got greedy and started exploiting the fanboys with exclusive contracts to certian providers.


Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
No, a scare tactic is something you say to stop someone, an actual tactic is something you do to make sure it cant be broken.



Hence its a scare tactic as the phone has already been unlocked.


Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
So you mean Companies should be unable to have any say in the matter? thats rather unfair to them.

You think its fair for companies to exploit customers like that?

I dont give two #s about apple or telecoms companies trying to milk the public for all they are worth.

Im surprised locking phones to companies is even legal in the EU. I know that unlocking them is perfectly legal though so I dont see what all the whining is about.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

No its not, maybe they shouldnt have got greedy and started exploiting the fanboys with exclusive contracts to certian providers.


Exploiting?

The fanboys have nothing to do with this, AT&T is probably paying money to Apple to make sure its the only provider. If this way of unlocking gets out, AT&T will remove the deal, maybe even force apple to repay them their losses.

Its not greedy, its good buisness.

"Oh man! I have to add Chocolate to warm milk to make hot chocolate! thats so unfair! i want to make it out of orange juice!"




Hence its a scare tactic as the phone has already been unlocked.


Its not too late for Apple to update and redesign, i dont think.


v
You think its fair for companies to exploit customers like?


Why yes, it is. The company can prepose whatever they want, and people buy what the company sells, creating a contract between them.

If a person got a phone that was broken, they can order the company to replace it, but if the person screws with the phone and unlocks it, the company cant do anything?

Thats unfair.



I dont give two #s about apple or telecoms companies trying to milk the public for all they are worth.


Your not seeing it from all angles.



Im surprised locking phones to companies is even legal in the EU. I know that unlocking them is perfectly legal though so I dont see what all the whining is about.


Im not whining, im trying to make sure this is a debate, not a mob.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I just cannot grasp why any consumer would defend being screwed over.

It was a mistake for both Apple and AT&T and O2 to sign exclusive contracts. There would be no need to hack it if these companies were so greedy.

Thank god the EU cuts out most of this crap and makes it illegal. I hate uncompetitive business practices of the likes of MS, Apple and EA.

Of course, Id bet youd defend the uncompetitive business of the Australian telecoms and are quite happy paying double the price for inferior services compared to other countries?


[edit on 25-9-2007 by Flyer]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Of course the easy answer that everyone is missing is "you can simply not buy the iPhone until they unlock them."

I'm pretty sure that once the sales eventually start to fade on the iPhone, Apple will sell an unlocked version just to squeeze the last bit of sales out.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

I just cannot grasp why any consumer would defend being screwed over.


Because companies are made of people. I think of more than just myself.



It was a mistake for both Apple and AT&T and O2 to sign exclusive contracts. There would be no need to hack it if these companies were so greedy.


So it was them vs thehackers. AT&T thought it could increase its profits by being the sole provider offered by Apple. Its a fully legal buisness deal, to which people are breaking the law to skip. Its the definition of unfair.



Of course, Id bet youd defend the uncompetitive business of the Australian telecoms and are quite happy paying double the price for inferior services compared to other countries?


Maybe, i pay $5 a month to use the internet from my mobile, im thinking about removing that, i havnt used the internet from my mobile yet.

Get the phone thats good for you, dont make the phone bend to your will.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus




Hence its a scare tactic as the phone has already been unlocked.


Its not too late for Apple to update and redesign, i dont think.



Again, it's in the linked article. The updates apparently will make unlocked phones not work. That's the "scare".


Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Im not whining, im trying to make sure this is a debate, not a mob.


Hence why I urge you to read the linked article, so that your arguments are more cogent.

Edit: spellin'

[edit on 25-9-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I have to set this straight because I'm here to deny sheep.


  1. Apple has the right to impose whatever limitations they want on the hardware that they make.
  2. The consumer has ever right to do whatever they please with the hardware they bought.
  3. Apple has every right to void your warranty if you do something not inline with agreement.
  4. AT&T and Apple incur no losses when a user buys an iPhone and unlocks it.


So whats the problem here? No one loses by unlocking the phone and the consumer gains their god given right to choose their service.

Consider this:
It is perfectly OK by Apple and completely legal to go out and buy an iPhone, never activate it, and simply smash it with a hammer. Why then would going out and unlocking a phone, which results in no losses to any party involved, be wrong?

There really is no moral or legal issue here. Apple is simply letting you know that you voided warranty. Just because it feels wrong to you isn't a reason. If you can destroy a phone legally then you can also modify the software on the phone as much as your heart desires want.

Jon



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   



So whats the problem here? No one loses by unlocking the phone and the consumer gains their god given right to choose their service.


Arnt you supposed to not use gods name in vain?

I agree with you, but im sure Apple must lose something to AT&T because the Internet provider is now ceasing to gain anything from this deal.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus

So it was them vs thehackers. AT&T thought it could increase its profits by being the sole provider offered by Apple. Its a fully legal buisness deal, to which people are breaking the law to skip. Its the definition of unfair.


No, its legal to unlock phones. The companies were stupid to sign an exclusive deal when they know every phone can be unlocked.

Now there would be no need to unlock phones if customers were not forced to use a certain provider.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Arnt you supposed to not use gods name in vain?

Nah, I don't follow crazy dogma.

We now return you to the thread, already in progress...


Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
I agree with you, but im sure Apple must lose something to AT&T because the Internet provider is now ceasing to gain anything from this deal.

Apple doesn't lose anything TO AT&T. Instead, Apple doesn't get their kickback FROM AT&T for providing a locked in device. Apple still makes their money off the purchase of the phone. If the phone is cheaper to buy than it costs to make...well, that is the fault of Apple for assuming their developers are actually competent and trying the "gaming console" routine with cell phones.

Console makers have a legal basis (the DCMA) for locking their systems and punishing people who try to unlock them. Things are vastly different in the cell phone industry. Since the DCMA covers "copyrighted content" and a phone network isn't "copyrighted content" you can't be punished for circumventing cell phone lock-ins.

Really, the fault is Apple's because they erroneously considered a network to be a type of "content" that should and could be protected. Logic, law, and technology all beg to differ with them.

Jon

[edit on 9.25.2007 by Voxel]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Nah, I don't follow crazy dogma.

We now return you to the thread, already in progress...


Neither do i, now dont put 'god given' into your sentences as if it means something.



Really, the fault is Apple's because they erroneously considered a network to be a type of "content" that should and could be protected. Logic, law, and technology all beg to differ with them.


Yeah, its apples fault that they thought people could be responsible with their phones and not screw around with their processes.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Yeah, its apples fault that they thought people could be responsible with their phones and not screw around with their processes.


I see you still don't understand the simple concept of "buying." When you buy something you trade something of equivalent value for something else. Both parties do a swap, in this case you swap money for an iPhone. Apple has no more right to tell me what to put on MY PHONE than I have telling them how to spend the money I gave them.

Once you buy the phone from them it is no longer Apple's phone.

I am kind of surprised I have to explain what the world "buy" means to someone on ATS. Are you related to Bill Clinton by any chance?


One could easily argue that Apple itself was being irresponsible by not allowing customers to use their devices to their fullest capability for no reason other than corporate greed and executive hubris. You would probably be one of the first to complain if, for instance, Toshiba DVD players only worked on Samsung TV's yet you support Apple's artificial lock-in.

Jon



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   


I am kind of surprised I have to explain what the world "buy" means to someone on ATS. Are you related to Bill Clinton by any chance?


Good, *snip* Now why dont you just calm down, drink another beer and get on with your life.

"Buying" isnt that simple. Perhaps Americas buying system is as simple and *snip* as you make it to be, if it is then sucks to be you.

Now, if people are getting the Apple phone on a plan then Apple is within its rights to make its contracts however it wants. Its what the people sign saying "I agree to adhere to these conditions, if not X will happen"

Im not surprised i have to explain the meaning of a contract to you.

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

You would probably be one of the first to complain if, for instance, Toshiba DVD players only worked on Samsung TV's yet you support Apple's artificial lock-in.


Actually, i wouldnt. I actually read about what i buy, i dont fall prey to "Shinythingitis"

I wouldnt buy it if it didnt have what i wanted.

More Dollars than sense, it seems



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Here's a very good article from CNET that mirrors my own thoughts on this whole controversy Apple has gotten itself into. The following snippet is pertinent to the current discussion:


Is Apple in danger of losing its following?

[...]

As I've mentioned before, there is certainly no crime in hacking an iPhone and as an avid AppTapp user, I've done it myself. And while Apple did not specifically threaten those people who hacked their iPhones, it did fire a warning shot at those who unlocked their iPhones in saying that a future software update will render an unlocked iPhone useless.

If Apple decides to follow through with this threat and release a software update that will "brick" the iPhone, the company should be ready for an extremely hostile user base and ramifications that will affect every device it produces. Some are naive enough to think that Apple can do no wrong and its cult following will stick with it through thick and thin, but I disagree. If Apple decides to brick iPhones, no one will be its friend.

But then again, there will always be some who claim Apple was forced to do it by AT&T and it should be doing it, but I think that's pure rubbish. If Apple releases a software update that will brick iPhones, it has nothing to do with AT&T loyalty and everything to do with making as much money as possible through questionable practices.

[...]

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Again, I must repeat that I really think this was another stupid move by Apple. Currently the new firmware hasn't been released yet, but if it does indeed "brick" the phone, then you can bet there'll be some serious backlash from those on the fence as well as a number of Apple loyalist.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   


If Apple decides to follow through with this threat and release a software update that will "brick" the iPhone, the company should be ready for an extremely hostile user base and ramifications that will affect every device it produces.


Good. Maybe they will learn a lesson.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Octavius Maximus
 


Unless they've been watching the blogosphere and realize that this move would jeopardize future profits. When it comes to corporate entities, that's all that really matters.

Well, we'll see how it goes and I'll keep posting updates in this thread.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus

Good. Maybe they will learn a lesson.


If youre talking about Apple then yes, they should learn.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Theyve learnt plenty, i'd be sick if i were an Apple higher up, or of any company.

You do your best to create something and get a profit (*gasp! they must be evil!). You make buisness deals with similar companies.

And what do people do? Screw around with your products and STILL complain.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join