Nokia launches anti-iPhone campaign amid controversy - Page 4

A moral which, thankfully, doesn't apply to the vast majority of iPhone customers! Lets hope the rest don't listen to the vocal minority of whining wannabe-geeks. Maybe this is the sort of stunt could be used by Apple to discredit the self-proclaimed technical experts (of nothing as it turns out) who's sum achievement is to break a product and blame someone else.

Let me guess how your prediction plays out. You're going to take the inevitable decline of sales after the initial burst in demand at product launch to justify your claim & fuel your fantasy?

McD

I wouldn't be so sure that it was intentional. I'm close to being persuaded by Erica Sadun's argument: It was a very bad update all-around. 1.1.1 bricked unhacked phones too. If they wanted to truly brick phones, they could have done a better job of it and not cause problems for their "good" customers.

Edit: my mistake, it's not one class action lawsuit, it's two of them now!

Will Apple kill the goose who was delivering some luscious, golden eggs?

It was just such a remarkably brainless maneuver...


That's a good point & it's nice to read some logic in this thread. I don't think Apple intentionally released a "bad update," I mean, look at all the problems 10.4.10 caused - there have been several security patches that have wreaked havoc on folks' Macs... bad software updates seem fairly common.

However, I do firmly believe that Apple deliberately used the 1.1.1 updater to destroy modified iPhones. I look at how & when they told people up front that their iPhones would be damaged by the update, so obviously they knew it was going to happen, and therefore, I have to think that destroying modified iPhones was intentional and deliberate.

The problem is the permanent damage to the phone. This was not necessary and it's why they're being sued via class action. It will be interesting to watch them defend their actions in court (this will provide even more bad press and further damage iPhone sales).

Basically, I don't really care if it was intentional or not, that's not even the important point. The real idiocy here is they went out and dropped the price to spur massive sales for the holiday season, and then, they go and do this remarkably stupid thing. Because of the court case now, this bad press will be extended for weeks and perhaps months. Nothing like keeping a foolish move front and center with the public for as long as possible, eh? :-)

Mel, it doesn't matter whether they did it on purpose or not. That's my speculation. I'm figuring they knew what they were doing because I think they're smart guys and because they told people that damage would happen. So, they knew.

It was still a stupid move and one that does not support in a positive way what should be a desire to increase sales during the holiday season.

It doesn't do that. It turned out that "bricked" iPhones aren't really bricked, it took hackers a couple days to figure out how to reverse it. I have yet to hear of any actual damage to the device.

Wow, interesting. Apple customer service is telling people that their iPhones are permanently damaged, a condition that cannot be reversed.

So, now they're lying to their customers as well? This is just spinning out of control.

It does matter. Apple is under no obligation to support unauthorized changes to its product.

The lawsuits we're seeing are just a bunch of greedy people thinking they can cash in. They don't actually represent the legality of the situation, or even the ethical situation.

But, they are using the views that you and some others express to try to get advantage. The views are simply not correct.

I agree with those who say that Apple didn't do this on purpose. I do think they didn't care if it happened, and they did give fair warning.

I blame those who wrote this terrible software, without thinking that something like this might happen, and therefore were so excited to be the first out with something they could brag about, that they failed to care enough about making sure that their "fix" could be removed for Apple's updates.

I also blame the people using this software, for not thinking the situation through, and demanding that these writers make sure their software was safe before releasing it. And lastly, I blame stupid people for using this software without questioning what might happen when Apple did update the systems.

At least put the blame where it belongs, while still, as I do, express annoyance that Apple isn't doing something that we want for the phone, rather than being so stubborn about it.

And I don't mean unlocking the phone. I can see good reasons for doing that.

You really are pushing it. You are on a track where you want to blame Apple for everything, without wanting to take the time to think it through.

OK, let's examine what you think I'm "pushing."

1. Apple firmware update renders iPhone inoperable. I don't see how you can disagree with this but ya never know...

2. Customers with inoperable iPhones go to Apple and ask if Apple can fix the phone. Perhaps you'll disagree with this, too. No matter, it's what has happened.

3. Apple tells these customers that the phones cannot be fixed, instead, they'll need to buy another iPhone. This is precisely what occurred - more than once, hence class action lawsuit.

4. Later, we all discover that the phones can in fact be repaired, they are not permanently damaged, as Apple previously claimed as the reason the phones could not be repaired. There are direct quotes from Apple personnel on this, but I'm sure you'll come up with some lame excuse why they would say this.

5. So, this is not lying? This is classic fabrication. Lies. I cannot see how you can claim this was not lying to their customers. They point blank said something that wasn't at all true, and said it on numerous occasions.

They have probably violated Magnuson-Moss (among several other laws). Just because they put wording into their software license or hardware sale license or contract that says doing such and such and so forth et al, will void the warranty does not make it so. Anyone believing this does not understand how the law works.

How much butt smooching can be done here? Will you extend any range or number of excuses to a corporation who's seeking to wring as much profit as possible out of bypassing consumer rights and violating the law?

Apple has paved a path that is quickly morphing this whole issue into one of consumer rights, pitting a number of angry customers vs the "greedy corporation." This is how ultimately stupid their maneuvers - aka marketing blunders - have been... they could not have painted themselves into a more intractable corner had they tried! Whether you think these lawsuits have merit or not is immaterial. My sole point has been and continues to be: this tactic of Apple's is not good for business, and could have been avoided.

If Microsoft was doing the exact same thing, why do I imagine you'd be all over them about it?

Too goofy.

The problem is you haven't substantiated your claims. For instance, you said:
And from what I read, Apple said:
Now, who lied? Apple - or you? I don't know, but hey, since I can't come up with anything that substantiates what you say, and I have come up with something that definitely disproves what you said...well...

My lawyers will be contacting you shortly with my class action suit. After all... you lied...

No argument there. Apple said that might happen.


No question that people asked that. But, before they released the update, they said that they wouldn't fix phones that had been rendered inoperable because of the use of unauthorized firmware changes.


A manufacturer can only tell customers what is (not) possible if the customer has done something outside of the contract they agree to when buying the product, and then expect from the manufacturer itself. In this case, Apple said that the phones would not work, if this happened, because they already said that they would not be responsible for fixing them. They are not responsible beyond that. If these "developers" can get the phones working again. fine. But as that isn't an official fix, Apple isn't able to approve it. As far as Apple is concerned then, the phones stay "bricked".


The answer is the same one as above.


No, it's not. you have to understand something about corporate liability. If you don't, then you can think what you want.


That's a joke, right? Did you just look that up? You don't understand it, if you say that. Manufacturers are allowed to put reasonable restrictions on the uses and modifications to their products, if those modifications may result in either danger to the user, or to the proper function of the product. If a customer violates those restrictions, then the warrantee is allowed to be considered broken.


That's the position people take when they destroy a product and still want the manufacturer to fix it. You make statements that you extend to areas that you have no evidence of whatsoever, because you want to believe it.


No. There are a few greedy bastards who want to take advantage of something they think will make them a lot of money. I have no sympathy there.


If it WAS the same exact thing, then I'd have the same response.

I've mentioned before that I've modded products many times, mostly audio equipment. But once that's done, the responsibility of the manufacturer is over. The same thing is true here.

From Daring Fireball

So there’s a buffer overflow in MobileSafari’s TIFF handling code that can be exploited to execute code with root privileges. And we’re supposed to treat this as good news? (Hint: it’s actually a security vulnerability.)

So people who use iPhone 3rd party software and do not update Apple's security software are leaving themselves open to well documented vulnerabilities. At some point someone is going to figure this out and exploit it.


Apple and MS do not generally use the same business model or the same tactics to gain advantage. MS develops its own periphery services and standards. Then uses devices to push consumers into those periphery services and standards and sell licenses for use of the proprietary standards to other businesses.

An MS iPod would not use AAC for audio or h.264 for video, or jpeg for pictures. They would use Windows Media, audio, video, and picture codecs. Anyone who wanted to load any content onto an MS iPod would have to buy a license from MS.

An MS iPhone would not use YouTube, Google Maps, Google/Yahoo search. Use open or industry standard formats such as AAC, h.264, jpeg, PDF, or vCard. Online video download, email, search, mapping, and social networking would use Windows Live: Live Mobile, Windows Live Messenger, Windows Live Hotmail, Live Search Maps, and Windows Live Spaces.

melgross wrote: That's a joke, right? Did you just look that up? You don't understand it, if you say that. Manufacturers are allowed to put reasonable restrictions on the uses and modifications to their products, if those modifications may result in either danger to the user, or to the proper function of the product. If a customer violates those restrictions, then the warrantee is allowed to be considered broken.

That will be up to the court to decide. All I noted was that placing language into a warranty contract does not make it so. When you write "warrantee," I'm thinking you actually meant "warranty." I don't understand why you so decry my statement in such an agitated manner, however. Yes, manufacturers are allowed to enter reasonable restrictions but certainly may not break the law with any such demands, nor does anything go. My statement that simply writing any restriction into a warranty does not make it so is both reasonable and accurate.

Again, the court will now decide if Apple's warranty restriction that SIM unlocks are a voiding condition is a legal restriction. Consumers have the right to unlock any US market SIM and Apple may not be granted the power to truncate that right. According to the WSJ, this would be necessary for Apple to legally void warranties based on a SIM unlock. Magnuson-Moss is vague on what the implications might be.

Some legal experts claim that this would be similar to stating that using a third-party ink jet cartridge voids the warranty of a printer. Working with our legal team and having written numerous warranties for our products, I am not convinced this is the same. While Apple 's 1.1.1 warranty states "a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple" voids the iPhone's warranty, SIM unlock processes that are free and openly sourced are not actual products, nor are they traditionally defined as a part. Plus, the SIM unlock can be easily undone, and therefore not a permanent modification. Complicating things, Apple treats 1.0.4 & 1.1.1 iPhones differently. Under their own litmus test, any iPhones unlocked prior to the 1.1.1 warranty would still be entitled to warranty care, and Apple apparently has no way of detecting precisely when an iPhone was unlocked. Creating & treating these "classes" differently may be illegal in itself.

melgross wrote: That's the position people take when they destroy a product and still want the manufacturer to fix it. You make statements that you extend to areas that you have no evidence of whatsoever, because you want to believe it.

I am not sure I understand this statement but once again, people in the United States have a right to unlock any SIM card. Furthermore, we've all witnessed the fact that these "bricked" iPhones were not destroyed at all, contrary to your claim above. So, it is unclear to me what your point might be.

melgross wrote: No. There are a few greedy bastards who want to take advantage of something they think will make them a lot of money. I have no sympathy there.

I see. These "greedy bastards" may be the only ones standing up for your rights here. According to both class action lawsuits, no damage awards are being sought; both parties only ask that Apple be forced to honor consumer rights and the law by opening up the iPhone. I don't know how this "will make them a lot of money." If you could explain how this happens, I would imagine everyone in this forum would appreciate knowing how! :-)

My sole point has been and continues to be: this tactic of Apple's is not good for business, and could have been avoided. Bad PR, and very unwise.

Thanks and have a wonderful weekend.

The pro bono attorneys are such good Samaritans.

No one has to fight for the right to buy some other phone. If they are not seeking money, why waste time and expense on a lawsuit? - just buy a phone that does what you want and simply don't purchase the inferior iPhone. The free market always delivers the best justice. If Apple and iPhone are not as good as other offerings then they will fail by their own design. Involvement of money grubbing consumer attorneys is irrelevant, but don't kid yourself, they want the money.

Manufacturers are not allowed to put any "unreasonable" restrictions on the use of their products. But, they are not expected to have to service products that have been modified out of accordance with the manufacturers specifications.

I'm perhaps "agitated" because I see statements that are not correct, or are assumptions that are being stated as fact, repeated,several times.

There is a serious misunderstanding of what the Registrar wrote.

The statement that it was "ok" to work around the DRM for purposes of making the device function on another network, is directed towards the idea that the user can be expected to do this without the fear of having their phone confiscated, or them being sued under the DMCA.

That's all. It says nothing about validation of a warranty. The manufacturer is still allowed to attempt to re-lock those phones.


It isn't the point of a SIM-unlock. That's where these stories are incorrect. It's the broader issue of whether a manufacturer can write updates to the software on their products, and have to worry about causing problems when unauthorized software changes, that they warn people about will cause a serious problem that they (the manufacturer) will then have to fix.

Usually, it's the maker of the add-on product that is responsible for fixing any problems. That would be the SIM-unlock writers.

In the case where we have modded the firmware to a digital audio equalizer (the Behringer 24/96) we have had to supply a way for it to be put back to the firms version, as they upgrade the firmware themselves every so often.

If we didn't, and something happened to the unit that rendered it useless, who would be responsible? US! Not Berhinger.

That's well understood. It seems as though it's only Apple's products that seem apart.


The courts have been both ways about printer cartridges. In one case against Lexmark, I think it was, they ruled against the company. But, that was about patents and copyright issues. But in another, about damage to the printer from unauthorized ink,they ruled for a company.

There was no cure for a bricked phone until after it happened, and well after Apple made its statements. As there was no way to "fix" the phones at the time of Apple's statements, the statements were correct. Also, as those "fixes" are also unofficial, Apple has no responsibility to vouch for their effectiveness. this is all pretty obvious.

We went over this already. I don't know why you bring it up again. The 1.1.1 update was far broader in extent than the minor updates that went before. It's very likely that those earlier updates didn't touch the firmware code that the unlockers were modifying, but that the new, larger, update did. Therefore, Apple issued the warning at that time.

That's a pretty simple, and logical, reason for the problem. Certainly better than the conspiracy being offered by so many.


Again, having the "right" to attempt to unlock a phone is, right now, legal. There is nothing that says that the manufacturer must supply support if the software doing it is incompatible with its own updates.

People had the choice, and many of them did, to NOT apply Apple's latest update. Those were some of the smarter ones. By waiting, the software to re-lock the phone before applying the update seems to have been developed.

If everyone had waited, instead of ignoring Apple's warnings, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Or, better yet, as I have said earlier, if the unlocking software had been, from the first, as it should have been, capable of relocking the phones before any Apple update was applied, this issue wouldn't even be here.

If the software were done correctly, it would have warned the user when an update was about to be installed, that the update would NOT be installed until the unlock software was removed (with the warning that the unlock software might not be re-installable after the update), and should it proceed to do so?

If yes, it would allow the update to proceed, the completion of which would trigger the question of whether the user wished to have the unlock re-installed—if it were possible at the time.

That would have been the best, and proper way to do that.

But, it would have takes perhaps another month to write it that way, and everyone was in such a rush to be the first, that they didn't care.

Those are the irresponsible parties.

The users were just as irresponsible for not thinking that a problem might occur, and ignoring the possibility.



What about the $1 billion lawsuit? That's not for money?

They're not standing up for MY rights buddy!

I'm not being irresponsible. I'll wait for the phone to have what I want and need. If it doesn't, I won't buy it. It's a phone. It's not that important.

I'll tell you something else. this could result in higher prices for the phones, if they should win, because then Apple would be required to spend its time examining every bit of incompetently written software to make sure the phone, and every subsequent update works with them. Absurd!

Even with computers, if you add software, or hardware, and it damages the machine, the manufacturer isn't responsible to clean up your mess.


No, that wasn't your sole point.

If it was, that one sentence would have sufficed.

I've acknowledged that point myself many times over the past month or so. It doesn't conflict with what I'm saying here, which is that Apple doesn't HAVE to do that. I didn't say that there couldn't be some area of compromise, and that it wouldn't be better politically.



Yes, have a good weekend.

Lovely excuses.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Never seen so many excuses since the technical press came to the defense of Microsoft "Bob." :-)

When do you typically pick up your Apple paycheck? Or is it automatically deposited into your account?

I've never seen so much logic warped and twisted in favor of what Steve wants. The Apple Faithful Attacks!!! How fabulous. You should be quite proud. Seriously, you've done a super job.

Oh I wish I could remember the right song for this salt on metal thing. I'm sure iTunes has something we all could buy to calm us down. Julie Andrews must have a song here to make us all feel better. Bless ya, and take care.

I've re-read all your (13) posts again and they amount to "bad business decision", like you know what you're talking about.

Now, with the latest customer survey results posted in another thread, the latest sales results at the link below... well, what's your excuse for missing the mark so thoroughly? I mean ... DAMN! ... You missed by a mile! You know absolutely nothing about business!

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071018/20071018005952.html?.v=1

All this and on the market for ... what? 4 moths?

You suck at business. You should stick to asking people if they "want fries with that?".

OMG, you're just so darling. How cute can you be?

You lighten all of our lives with your brilliant mental blaze.

We thank you as much as anyone could thank someone who placed consonants after vowels and vice versa. You are so erudite, we bow before your magnificence.

Thanks so much for the delectable enlightenment that is you.

Now, get back to your reality TV.

You're obviously not part of the iPhone demographic. Too bad. So sad.

I'm very happy with mine.

THAT'S how cute I can be!

I smells a disgruntled troll.

It will surely be good for us the consumer, and Apple will hopefully become a bit wiser.

If you've been around here for any time, you would know that I knock Apple when I think they've done something wrong. I'm sure most everyone else can vouch for that, so stop with the silliness.

If you can actually refute what I've said, with something sensible, then please do so.

Since you can't seem to do that, I will assume that this post is your way of giving up, and trying to take a last shot at demeaning the argument.

Nice work.