• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Brick Apple Sales . . .

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

benbaked

Folding/SETI/Rosetta Team Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Location
WA
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01224/

I just came across this article linked from a forum members sig and I love it! I don't have an iPhone so I haven't kept up on all of the fuss about Apple locking down the hacking of it, but I briefly remember something about it a few months ago.

I had never came across this article until now and I must say I enjoyed it. Brilliant writing by Ed, I love the parallels with Apple's 1984 superbowl commercial, how Jobs-loyalists have now become the masses of gray-faced drones.

Perhaps another scantily clad woman will break things up again (only this time Tux covers her bouncing boobies)...:D
 
Glad you like the sig, benbaked. This article really said it all from me and I'm highly gratified that at least one other person was thereby able to see what otherwise may have been relegated to obscurity. Hopefully we'll be able keep this invaluable article in the forefront of our forum's collective conscience.
 
Personally I think it's a little melodramatic.... Granted this is in retrospective.

ANY cell phone maker will put restrictions on the types of apps you can use because you could just write a skype client for when you're in a WiFi environment and just use your unlocked - simfree - iPhone or iPod Touch that way instead of paying for AT&T servce. Yes, it would be nice if we could do this but they want to make money so it's unlikely to be seen on any phone. I haven't seen anyone complain about this until Apple entered the fray and it's just because they're Apple.

Apple has the same problem as Microsoft, they get jumped on for certain things that are "their flaw." If even the smallest security bug is found in Windows, their OS is labeled swiss cheese. If Apple tries to put on some sort of limit found on basically every other cell phone (how many user made Applications do you run on your cell phone?), they're instantly Orwellian dictators.

That said, for such mongers of micromanagement and Orwelian angst, they don't seem to try very hard to keep these things locked.

Plus the SDK is coming out soon.

If you wrote a custom BIOS for your PC and you updated (mind that with the iPhone you are prompted to update your firmware, it's not automatic) and it was overwritten, would you whine to the mobo maker about it? Should they legitimately care?

Just because YOU chose to update it before a patch was written to cover the new update isn't Apple's fault.
 
ANY cell phone maker will put restrictions on the types of apps you can use because you could just write a skype client for when you're in a WiFi environment...If Apple tries to put on some sort of limit found on basically every other cell phone (how many user made Applications do you run on your cell phone?), they're instantly Orwellian dictators.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this premise; my Audiovox 6700 (which, BTW, runs circles around an iphone) can be freely configured to run on any CDMA network. Likewise, there are a plethora of CDMA and GSM smartphones on the market today that can run on any network in the world and run any available Windows or Linux-based program depending on the OS. I can run literally tens of thousands of freely available open-source and proprietary programs on my phone doing everything from telling the tides in the Marianas to running terminal server.

If you wrote a custom BIOS for your PC and you updated (mind that with the iPhone you are prompted to update your firmware, it's not automatic) and it was overwritten, would you whine to the mobo maker about it? Should they legitimately care?

Just because YOU chose to update it before a patch was written to cover the new update isn't Apple's fault.

A more valid analogy may be to say: "If you wrote a custom BIOS for your PC and you updated Windows and it permanently disabled your machine from ever running Linux, is this an ethical business practice"?

The real question here is: "Did Apple intentionally , as opposed to inadvertently engineer this update to permanently disable the phone"?

From all that I've read regarding this issue, the answer is a resounding "yes". It also follows that Apple is very much aware of what their patches do and don't do and it's highly unlikely that they'd "accidentally" include code that just happens to target modified phones, all but permanently disabling them.
 
Last edited:
In all fairness, Apple is not the first to pull such a stunt. How many hacked game systems did Microsoft turn into doorstops with updates? I can’t remember if Sony rendered early hacked PSP useless, but I do recall some type of fuss.

While completely disagree with purposely breaking a purchased product (rather than resetting it to defaults) there is some small justification for companies trying to control their products even after it is in a private home. They shouldn’t be burdened with the cost of supporting altered products.

Right now, this is the way things are. Laws will probably change in the future (at least for phones), but I have pretty much become use to the fact that I can’t necessarily do what ever I want with these types of products or the software/media associated with them. I bought my iPhone on the first day with 100% certainty of 2 things.

1. The price would drop soon
2. It would be hacked and Apple would break those that were

Anyone who had doubts of either were in denial and foolish not to accept their risks.
 
I don't think it is in Apple's best interest to stifle creativity in regards to things ppl do with their products. I would imagine that the numbers of people who are unlocking the phones is quite small in proportion to everyone who bought one.
 
I'll have to respectfully disagree with this premise; my Audiovox 6700 (which, BTW, runs circles around an iphone) can be freely configured to run on any CDMA network. Likewise, there are a plethora of CDMA and GSM smartphones on the market today that can run on any network in the world and run any available Windows or Linux-based program depending on the OS. I can run literally tens of thousands of freely available open-source and proprietary programs on my phone doing everything from telling the tides in the Marianas to running terminal server.



A more valid analogy may be to say: "If you wrote a custom BIOS for your PC and you updated Windows and it permanently disabled your machine from ever running Linux, is this an ethical business practice"?

Ethical or not? It's a business model where Apple get's some money from selling the phone, and some more as a percentage of the users phone bill. Would it be more ethical to charge double for the phone and let you use it freely? Personally I think the best option would have been to offer both options and let the customer choose, but who am I to decide for them?

I don't live in the US, but I've understood that many operators offer free or cheap phones that are tied to the operator and subscription. Sure you can get the same phone without that subscription, but the price is different.

The real question here is: "Did Apple intentionally , as opposed to inadvertently engineer this update to permanently disable the phone"?

From all that I've read regarding this issue, the answer is a resounding "yes". It also follows that Apple is very much aware of what their patches do and don't do and it's highly unlikely that they'd "accidentally" include code that just happens to target modified phones, all but permanently disabling them.

What was the modification based on? As far as I understood they where using some kind of buffer under-run or other flaw in the operating system running on the phone. That same bug could be used to create a virus for the phone, and if that is the case it would have been unethical not to patch the flaw.

There is no force upgrade, each user decides himself if he want's to do it or not. I find this whole issue to be pretty ridiculous, as in nobody should really have even thought that they would not go ahead and break the hacks.

I read through the article and found it to be very funny. Now I really like the ability to do what I want with my hardware, and run Linux on most of my computers. However it's still good to take things for what they are, and nobody should have thought they are getting an "open device" that can be hacked like they want when acquiring an iPhone.

But of course it's a juicy issue as there are good arguments in either way. Great opportunity to bash Apple ;)

edit:

According to this page the iPhone is truly hacked by using a memory buffer overflow, you would have to be stupid to not expect it to be fixed in a new firmware.
 
Last edited:
Back