Apple Users Talking Class-Action Lawsuit Over iPhone Locking

I don't think that you are missing anything. There are plenty of cellular devices that now include WiFi. Companies like Verizon, AT&T and Nextel certainly will not 'unlock' that capability lest they watch revenues walk out the door. The last thing they want is people making free VOIP calls on their cell phones.

I am sure that in the AT&T user agreement and the Apple license agreement there is a provision for distributing software updates. There is probably also a provision that prohibits making changes to the software like unlocking.

A class-action (if it succeeds) might cost Apple a bit, enrich a few lawyers and give the affected users a token like a $10 settlement.

At the moment Apple isn't being sued - it is more likely this is just a fanboy venting a little steam. Not to mention a lawsuit wouldn't work anyway. Apple has no responsibility to make sure that hacks and unauthorized programs work with their updates.

Apple's problem is this is the sort of thing expected from other companies but not Apple. Although Apple has never supported open systems, lock down their devices with DRM and has never worried about backwords compatibility they have this perception of being some enlightened, benevolent, company that can do no wrong.

Missteps like the price cut and updates that brick the phone are beginning to reveal Apple has feet of clay. Finding out your idol isn't made of gold stings a bit.

A few anyway...........the rest are still suffering Stockholm Syndrome.

Haha, need I remind you what MS does to any modded Xbox 360s they can identify? Yeah, I thought so. (and this is coming from an avid 360 gamer and iPhone non-owner)

Anything to get Brian Ford's Apple Panties in a Bunch.

Just like every single automobile manufacturer would tell you if you modified your engine and attempted to service it via warranty.

I don't think the analogy fits. Its not as if the user broke the phone. I think a similar analogy would be if you put a custom engine in and then took the car to the dealership to repair a broken headlight. The dealer notices you put in your own engine and intentionally shuts down your entire car. The engine had nothing to do with the headlight.....

If you install software that affects the funtionality, I agree. However, if Apple goes out of the way to make sure that the the functionality of the phone is impaired, thats another instance.

I don't think the analogy fits. Its not as if the user broke the phone. I think a similar analogy would be if you put a custom engine in and then took the car to the dealership to repair a broken headlight. The dealer notices you put in your own engine and intentionally shuts down your entire car. The engine had nothing to do with the headlight.....

If you install software that affects the funtionality, I agree. However, if Apple goes out of the way to make sure that the the functionality of the phone is impaired, thats another instance.

Publius76. The problem that many people seem to have is there misunderstanding of the difference between firmware and software. The issue here is simply this. When people hacked their iPhones to work on a network other thna AT&T they altered the firmware of the phone. When Apple issued a Software update there was now way on earth it was ever going to work with the altered firmware unless Apple engineers specifically went out of their way to make it do so, and they have absolutely no obligation to do that. Remember that it is only people who hacked their firmware who had their phones "bricked" (and even then not properly bricked).

Anyone who had just installed third party software simply found that it was no longer there after installing the update.

To anyone that still complains I would mention the following points:

1) At no point has Apple stated that the iPhone is an open system, in fact the opposite, they have gone out of their way to let you know it is closed.

2) At every opportunity Apple has reminded people they expect you to maintain an AT&T contract to use the iPhone (you makes your choices).

3) Apple even warned all users that hacked iPhones could be rendered inoperable by the coming update.

4) Updating to the latest version of software was a choice, no one had to take it.

Having said all of the above, there is a reason why I have not bought an iPhone yet and will not unless a developer's SDK is released for it. Apple has deceived no one, but plenty of people have deceived themselves.

The crux of the debate is this: Hacking these phones (the firmware) was far too easy, and people were fooled into believing that nothing bad could happen. Hacking something at that level should make someone fear for their device. If you don't have that fear because you know what you're doing and the risks -- hack away. If the fear exists, don't mess with your expensive gadget.

Apple has deceived no one, but plenty of people have deceived themselves.

Very well put.

Uh? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Please, if you're going to troll an Apple discussion, at least flame us on the right subject. You're a few weeks late for the "price drop" discussion.

I think what you meant to say:

"To those who thought they'd be able to install 3rd Party Applications like I can on my (insert allegedly superior smart phone model here), LOL ! Suckers! Your phone only works as advertised!"

I stand by my comment, bye bye Brian. Now hurry up & refresh your page, there might be another apple story being released any second now.

Is it fashion of the day to be an anti-Apple troll, or what?

That's a timeless fashion, Kyle.

Like mullets, and tight-rolled jeans.

I yield to no one in my Mac-centricness or -city (wrote my thesis on one in 1985-86 and have used every major model since at work or home), but that's really being a sucker, paying $600 for a locked phone of ANY kind. And then Apple sabotages a workaround so that some greater value for money can be gained for those who want to be able to switch networks. Isn't paying for the phone enough for them? No, they need to keep their hand in your pocket indefinitely.

Apple has never been about being an open platform. In some respects this has been strength for them.

That said this actually may be about more than stopping people from using the phone the way they want for philosophical reasons. My understading is that AT&T made a lot of concessions and paid a lot of money to have the iPhone exclusively. My guess is Apple made promises to make that happen. So, if Apple doesn't do everything they can to keep the iPhone exclusive - my guess is that they could be looking at breach of contract suits from AT&T.

Could be wrong though - could just be the standard Apple attitude.

I stood in line to get an iPhone the first day and have no regrets. I got my $100 credit, and I'll use it to buy my wife an iPhone of her own. She currently has a Blackberry 7100i that she absolutely hates. I've fiddled around with it, and I too don't like it. The user interface quite frankly sucks.

The majority of people don't hack their phones... don't hack software... don't do most of the stuff that the techno-scenti live for. Heck, how many times have I heard someone ask a question like, "can you give me directions to X" or, "I don't know the website for X"... There are tons of people out there who don't live for technology and don't even think about simple things like using Google or Mapquest to this day!

but that's really being a sucker, paying $600 for a locked phone of ANY kind.

Why? Apple provides an incredible phone that is quite literally ahead of any other phone in the market in terms of UI and to an extent functionality, receiving special treatment from AT&T on visual voicemail, the activation process, and the iPhone-specific plans, and yet you expect the phone to be unlocked? That just isn't going to happen.

I, and judging by the percentage of iPhone users that are satisfied with their purchase (something like 90%), hundreds of thousands of others have been more than satisfied with the iPhone. It is the phone I have been waiting for -- a device that successfully combines my phone, iPod, and PDA (email, Internet, calendar and contacts) into one device. Unlike other smartphones, it does these functions well, with few exceptions. I knew what I was buying because I am a responsible consumer, and in hindsight, it was an excellent decision. I would do it again.

Maybe the iPhone isn't right for you -- and that's fine. But just because it doesn't make sense for you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for anyone else. Your sweeping "sucker" designation for hundreds of thousands of people is extreme, and unjustified.

Sometimes, just sometimes, people that disagree with you aren't stupid, or mindless lemming consumers buying whatever comes out next. Sometimes, they have justified reasons for what they did, despite your doubt.

Rock on......

And then Apple sabotages a workaround so that some greater value for money can be gained for those who want to be able to switch networks. Isn't paying for the phone enough for them? No, they need to keep their hand in your pocket indefinitely.

My goodness, they're actually enforcing the "iPhone is a closed device" policy they've announced from the very start?

How dare they!

Also, I just thought of this, but why do you think Apple would want the iPhone to stay on exclusively one carrier if it wasn't mandated by AT&T?

My goodness, let's sell fewer iPhones by turning away people who don't like AT&T.

Also, I just thought of this, but why do you think Apple would want the iPhone to stay on exclusively one carrier if it wasn't mandated by AT&T?

Money. I was listening to a podcast yesterday (older that came out when the unlocks were announced) and something they brought up was that Apple is getting a cut of about everything - activation fees, monthly service fee, and whatever else. If someone unlocks the iPhone and uses it on T-Mobile - that is money out their pockets, now and in the future.

So it may not be AT&T pressuring them, but their own self-interest.

I doubt you can bring up any numbers comparing potential lost revenue due to the AT&T lock-in and gained revenue from activation fees. Keep in mind that activation fees pale in comparison to the iPhone's price tag.

It isn't just the activation fee, but a part of the ongoing monthly service fees. Although I don't know what type of cut Apple gets, I don't think it is inconceivable they may amount to more than the profit from the sale of an iPhone.

Fair enough. I don't know enough to judge either way.

It isn't just the activation fee, but a part of the ongoing monthly service fees. Although I don't know what type of cut Apple gets, I don't think it is inconceivable they may amount to more than the profit from the sale of an iPhone.

I can't find the source right now, but the initial rumours were that Apple received about 6 dollars per month per contract.