Apple may "brick" unlocked iPhones

They have stated that unlocking the iPhone voids the warranty, so I can't picture any lawsuit against them.

Although there is a DMCA exemption that makes it legal for users to unlock their cellphones "for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network", Apple does not have to honor their warranty if you violate it. That could be challenged in court , but I'm not sure it would get far under that premise. But having said that, I'd bet my next paycheck that someone will try and exploit some legal loophole under which to file suit based on the grounds that Apple deliberately broke their phone.

True, but nowadays if someone can get awarded $2.9 million for spilling coffee on themselves at McDonalds I guess anything's possible. All I'm saying is that we're a "sue happy" nation and there'll be at least one disgruntled iPhone owner out there that will try it.

Voiding a warranty and intentionally breaking a device is NOT the same thing. If anything a software update should "un-unlock" the phone... not brick it.

Apple is looking more and more like the corporate monster in their "1984" commercial rather than the heroic free thinker.

I was so close to being an iPhone owner. I had a Touch (which unfortunately isn't a good iPod, nor a good phone-less iPhone) so I was planning for an iPhone to be used as an iPod. I ordered a refurb and it arrived but with this news then I decided that there's too much risk so I sent it back and never opened it in order to avoid the restocking fee.

It's very likely that Apple is just spreading the FUD on this, but it's just as likely that the update will brick you. Apple is releasing the iPhone in Europe in November and it costs significantly more so this news works in that it definitely will deter importers. But the real question is whether or not Apple is bluffing on how hard they will play this game. In the end, the hardcore hackers will figure a way but average dopes like me may get stuck. So for now I'll get a Nano and in 6-12 months we'll see what develops in the iPhone unlocking world.

apple is basically in control in this situation. they can just "un-unlock" the hacked iPhones, or they may go the harsher route and brick them. i personally think that apple will brick them, because they want to teach a lesson to those who messed with them and hacked the phones. i would be extremely cautious if i had an unlocked iPhone and wait to find out if the update really does brick the phones or not before syncing and updating the firmware.
Yeah, this should just be common sense. Anyone going out of their way to unlock their phone should be smart enough to know not to update the phone until they know what happens and whether or not it's fixable.

I think they intend to play hard ball indeed.

Indeed. Now they are going after hackers of the iPod Touch ( http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/25/apple-sends-takedown-notice-to-ipod-hackers-isp/) as well.

I know they might brick the unlocked phones but would this included the "jailbroken" iphones that can run the NES app and things like that.

No one knows. They've taken a hard line against jail beaking the Touch but they've made more jailbreak-friendly statements about the iPhone. We'll just have to wait and see.

at&t made a huge deal with apple to get the iPhone EXCLUSIVELY for them. and that makes a lot of sense, because the way it was supposed to be was that if people wanted the iPhone, they had to get at&t. at&t knows that they will get a lot more customers because this is the iPhone, they know that millions of people are going to buy this (and they have, apple sold its millionth iPhone not that long ago). but, to both at&t and apple's dismay, the DVD kid comes along and changes that. now people have a choice. if you get an iPhone, you can use it on at&t like you're supposed to, or you can go with t-mobile. now, the people have the power. we saw all of this. now here's what i think we didn't see: at&t sees this and gets worried. then they see people unlocking the iPhone and using it on t-mobile. infuriated at&t executives meet with the apple guys. this wasn't supposed to happen to us, we didn't pay millions of dollars for an exclusive deal that was going to last a couple of months. the apple guys get worried, after all, these guys at at&t did pay millions for an exclusive deal that was supposed to last several years. they can't just say, too bad, so sad. they promise the at&t guys that they will fix this problem. hence, the apple guys threatening to brick unlocked iPhones. i think whether they brick them or just relock them with the software update, they had a damn good idea (a crafty one, but a good one), because people want the wireless itunes. and i wouldn't doubt that unlocking the phone after they come equipped with the wireless itunes app will disable it (wireless itunes). so, is apple wrong? yes and no. they do have a massive contract with at&t, and they can't just ignore that. if something comes that should threaten the iPhone's exclusivity to at&t, apple has to do something about it. but bricking the unlocked phones? that's crossing the line. if you made your software susceptible to hackers, that's your own fault. going on a rampage of revenge because people wanted a choice is not ethical, right, or just. if they do decide to brick them, i wouldn't doubt that a massive lawsuit against apple would occur, and i think that the people could win, which would be a huge blow for apple. wow, this was really long, hope i didn't bore you guys too much :)

keep us posted on what's going on with the update and your iPhones.

I have a feeling Apple kept hacking in mind when they released the iphone.

dont people wonder how you will be able to resell your iphone later on once your contract ends or you get an upgrade because to get the restore function to work you need the original sim that shipped with the handset and if you upgrade your hanset on a contract they renew the handset and you keep your sim so who ever bys the handset needs your sim if they ever need to restore the iphone :eek: skary thought

I seriously doubt that this will be a problem going forward. ATT and Apple are likely to figure out a way to allow resale of used iPhones. It's in their best interest to have as many of them out there, even if they're second hand, because they continue to generate monthly revenue for both companies.

I seriously doubt that this will be a problem going forward. ATT and Apple are likely to figure out a way to allow resale of used iPhones. It's in their best interest to have as many of them out there, even if they're second hand, because they continue to generate monthly revenue for both companies.Debatable. I mean, why can't we sell iTunes media and games? After all, each file is encrypted to a unique user ID, it would not be much work to create a license transferral mechanism where you would sell your media to someone through an iTunes interface like happens in MMORPGs when two players trade/sell goods. Then the buyer would download the newly encrypted to his iTunes account version of the media and Apple could collect some minor transfer fee. Everybody wins, right? Apple gets to promote more iTunes sales because the media has "real value" since you can, just like a CD or video game, sell it when you tire of it, and the users get to recoup some of their purchases and find bargains.

But it'll never happen if the courts don't force them. Sure, the law says we can sell our iTunes stuff, we just can't actually do it because the company that holds the DRM chains won't make it technologically feasible. For them, this is the perfect way to do away with resales, which is how all these companies think it should work. I doubt they think much differently just because it's an iPhone. Apple would rather sell people more iPhones, not figure out ways to let the unwashed masses create new customers for AT&T by reselling them, and while, in this case, AT&T might want to have resales, it's Apple that holds all the strings.

Hmmm, so has anyone confirmed if the new itunes update bricks the phones? Just curious.

I don't see the comparison between reselling digital media and reselling hardware. It seems to me that there's too much upside for both companies in allowing their customers to resell their old handsets.You buy something, there is an established court ruling known as the first sale doctrine that means you have the absolue right to resell it on your terms regardless of what the copyright holders think.

Apple (and all DRM) circumvents this by not expressly forbidding it, just failing to make it technologically possible. If you don't see the comparison between the scenario of Apple controlled iTunes media and the Apple controlled iPhone, you fail at basic logic.

Apple most likely has no interest in phone resales no matter what you want to claim to the contrary. Arguing they should have an interest is like my arguing they should have an interest in supporting all iPods as equally as possible. It is true in the larger sense - Apple should want to keep their devices out there as long as possible, buying long term financial success at the expense of short term gains - but it's not Apple. Their business model, going back to long before the idea of making digitial music players, let alone digital music playing phones, was a glimmer in Jobs' eye, is to just keep selling you new hardware as frequently as possible.

If the AT&T contract is as financially friendly to Apple as you suspect it is, Apple would just as soon create an environment where users felt compelled to either stick with the old Apple phone (result: Apple makes money) or toss it and buy the latest (result: Apple makes more money) and new customers would be forced to buy officially released iPhones (result: Apple makes money). The only way Apple gains by allowing resale is if it actually creates a significant net increase in the number of customers, and that would require a contingent of potential users simply unwilling to ever buy an iPhone they couldn't get a super bargain used. If it turns out that there isn't that significant "never buy a new phone" market and Apple allows resale, they do nothing but lose money. If it becomes possible, it will only be because AT&T sees the value in keeping them in circulation as long as possible and forces Apple.

Of course Apple would rather have people buy the new handsets. Any company would hope for a perfect world in which there was no reselling, just people buying new stuff.

That's not how it works. And I don't see why Apple wouldn't want people buying their handset, resell or otherwise. With the iPhone's emphasis on digital media, the wifi store and who knows what else may be added, there's potential profit all the time. Not to mention, they won't have to worry about warranties or coverage. And they also get a cut of the monthly payments to AT&T.

I don't see why they wouldn't be mildly interested. Cell-phones generate a lot of money after the initial sale, regardless of how they were purchased. The iPhone could possibly be one of the most lucrative post-sale cell phones out there.