Originally Posted by matt_s
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! :-)
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.
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.
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.
Thanks and have a wonderful weekend.
Yes, have a good weekend.