It seems to me that it is the responsibility of those making the hacked unlocking solutions, to make sure that they do not "brick" the phones when the manufacturer comes out with updates.
It doesn't seem as though the manufacturer should have to worry about people using phones outside of the warrantee. It may be better for publicity purposes, but certainly not a responsibility.
Perhaps if there were just one method, it might be possible, but not with several.
We really don't know the quality of the work. The mere fact that these solutions work doesn't mean that they are doing it "by the book".
Don't forget that even with their computers, Apple warns developers not to use certain memory locations, or other areas of the OS for their programs because they are "reserved".
That's bad enough for the developers who do so anyway.
But if they modify the firmware, which controls the hardware itself, even the startup processes, anything can happen when updating it.
Corrupted code can easily result if the update attempts to update changed code. The result can easily be a "bricked" machine.
Can it be brought back to life? If Apple was willing to do so, probably, but it might require a trip to the Apple repair shop, so why should they?
So if the carrier is required to be to unlock the phone upon request after 6 months, that puts them in a bind when they aren't the manufacturer of the phone. That leads me to believe that the carrier would negotiate a contract with Apple that spells out what happens if Apple doesn't (or can't) provide the unlock mechanism in time.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread: in the US, AT&T will unlock a customers phone after 90 days ... unless it's an iPhone, which they will not unlock even after the contract is over.
Whether Apple required this policy, or it was a decision of AT&T, I have no idea.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread: in the US, AT&T will unlock a customers phone after 90 days ... unless it's an iPhone, which they will not unlock even after the contract is over.
Whether Apple required this policy, or it was a decision of AT&T, I have no idea.
Right, but we were talking about France where apparently carriers are required by law to honor unlock requests after 6 months with a customer. With that kind of liability, I suspect carriers have contracts with apple that stipulate what happens if Apple fails to deliver that functionality. After all, would Orange want to write and support it's own iPhone-unlock hack?
Right, but we were talking about France where apparently carriers are required by law to honor unlock requests after 6 months with a customer. With that kind of liability, I suspect carriers have contracts with apple that stipulate what happens if Apple fails to deliver that functionality. After all, would Orange want to write and support it's own iPhone-unlock hack?
Of course ... I should have made it clear that I was only pointing out that the iPhone doesn't fall under the typical procedures followed by AT&T in regard to unlocking.
There are a few things that are still puzzling me about the plans Apple have for the release of the iPhone in different territories:
1) Given that the laws in various countries differ, in regard to consumer rights, will Apple be providing different firmware builds for each country?
2) If so, are they going to release different hardware builds for each country with the express purpose of stopping a US consumer from installing a Belgian firmware on their iPhone (when and if the iPhone gets released there - given that Belgian mobile phones are not to be sold with any form of 'lock').
3) If the hardware is exactly the same, what method will be used to determine which firmware to install? I assume that the IMEI number will be used to determine which firmware is valid for said handset. If this is the case, I expect that this will make it much easier for the 'hackers' to provide an unlocked phone in any territory.
I've got more, but my morning coffee hasn't kicked in and my stream of consciousness is but a trickle.
It is possible that the "lock" portion of the firmware is identical for all countries. The carrier could interrogate the phone, get the serial number, and answer back with the right code to unlock it on that particular date. Of course the process could be reverse engineered but that doesn't seem like the course of least resistance for hackers anyway.
Not that I'm saying that this is how it will be done. Just that it is possible.
Of course ... I should have made it clear that I was only pointing out that the iPhone doesn't fall under the typical procedures followed by AT&T in regard to unlocking.
There are a few things that are still puzzling me about the plans Apple have for the release of the iPhone in different territories:
1) Given that the laws in various countries differ, in regard to consumer rights, will Apple be providing different firmware builds for each country?
2) If so, are they going to release different hardware builds for each country with the express purpose of stopping a US consumer from installing a Belgian firmware on their iPhone (when and if the iPhone gets released there - given that Belgian mobile phone are not to be sold with any form of 'lock').
3) If the hardware is exactly the same, what method will be used to determine which formware to install? I assume that the IMEI number will be used to determine which firmware is valid for said handset. If this is the case, I expect that this will make it much easier for the 'hackers' to provide an unlocked phone in any territory.
I've got more, but my morning coffee hasn't kicked in and my stream of consciousness is but a trickle.
It's a complicated question, isn't it?
Just curious here. It's theoretical, of course.
What if AI charged a membership fee. Then what if a number of members wanted to do something that AI disallowed, and they wrote software to work around AI's rules spelt out in the required contract that one must agree to when joining?
How would you then feel?
After all, members might insist that they are paying a fee to join, and so therefore they have to right to mofify your sites' software to enable then to do something that yours doesn't permit. One of those things could be the uploading of pictures to your servers, as the software can allow, but doesn't, as that function is turned off.
What would be the reaction from you and those others running the site?
What if AI charged a membership fee. Then what if a number of members wanted to do something that AI disallowed, and they wrote software to work around AI's rules spelt out in the required contract that one must agree to when joining?
How would you then feel?
After all, members might insist that they are paying a fee to join, and so therefore they have to right to mofify your sites' software to enable then to do something that yours doesn't permit. One of those things could be the uploading of pictures to your servers, as the software can allow, but doesn't, as that function is turned off.
What would be the reaction from you and those others running the site?
Heh. Given that a majority of the people browsing the site are running AdBlock Plus on Firefox, they've already figured out one way to 'hack' the site.
I'll say this: If we were charging a fee to use the site, I would make damned certain to allow as much as technically possible for those users who had paid. Of course, I'd also do my best to ensure the integrity of the system.
If I hadn't made myself clear in the past, in my forum posts on the iPhone, I don't begrudge Apple for trying to keep the system closed nor for protecting their revenue stream with AT&T. I do, however, wonder what they have in store, considering that the available third-party software is miles ahead of what I expect Apple to release for the platform. I also don't have a problem with people hacking the iPhone, as long as they feel no sense of entitlement.
Since I'll finally have an iPhone this week, I'm sure I'll be running 1.0.2 for quite some time. I just hope that when it finally gets released up here I'll be able to update the firmware to a legitimate state.
Heh. Given that a majority of the people browsing the site are running AdBlock Plus on Firefox, they've already figured out one way to 'hack' the site.
I'll say this: If we were charging a fee to use the site, I would make damned certain to allow as much as technically possible for those users who had paid. Of course, I'd also do my best to ensure the integrity of the system.
If I hadn't made myself clear in the past, in my forum posts on the iPhone, I don't begrudge Apple for trying to keep the system closed nor for protecting their revenue stream with AT&T. I do, however, wonder what they have in store, considering that the available third-party software is miles ahead of what I expect Apple to release for the platform. I also don't have a problem with people hacking the iPhone, as long as they feel no sense of entitlement.
Since I'll finally have an iPhone this week, I'm sure I'll be running 1.0.2 for quite some time. I just hope that when it finally gets released up here I'll be able to update the firmware to a legitimate state.
Comments
It doesn't seem as though the manufacturer should have to worry about people using phones outside of the warrantee. It may be better for publicity purposes, but certainly not a responsibility.
Perhaps if there were just one method, it might be possible, but not with several.
We really don't know the quality of the work. The mere fact that these solutions work doesn't mean that they are doing it "by the book".
Don't forget that even with their computers, Apple warns developers not to use certain memory locations, or other areas of the OS for their programs because they are "reserved".
That's bad enough for the developers who do so anyway.
But if they modify the firmware, which controls the hardware itself, even the startup processes, anything can happen when updating it.
Corrupted code can easily result if the update attempts to update changed code. The result can easily be a "bricked" machine.
Can it be brought back to life? If Apple was willing to do so, probably, but it might require a trip to the Apple repair shop, so why should they?
If people were that dumb, then they deserve any problems they might now have.
*correct answer*
So if the carrier is required to be to unlock the phone upon request after 6 months, that puts them in a bind when they aren't the manufacturer of the phone. That leads me to believe that the carrier would negotiate a contract with Apple that spells out what happens if Apple doesn't (or can't) provide the unlock mechanism in time.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread: in the US, AT&T will unlock a customers phone after 90 days ... unless it's an iPhone, which they will not unlock even after the contract is over.
Whether Apple required this policy, or it was a decision of AT&T, I have no idea.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread: in the US, AT&T will unlock a customers phone after 90 days ... unless it's an iPhone, which they will not unlock even after the contract is over.
Whether Apple required this policy, or it was a decision of AT&T, I have no idea.
Right, but we were talking about France where apparently carriers are required by law to honor unlock requests after 6 months with a customer. With that kind of liability, I suspect carriers have contracts with apple that stipulate what happens if Apple fails to deliver that functionality. After all, would Orange want to write and support it's own iPhone-unlock hack?
Right, but we were talking about France where apparently carriers are required by law to honor unlock requests after 6 months with a customer. With that kind of liability, I suspect carriers have contracts with apple that stipulate what happens if Apple fails to deliver that functionality. After all, would Orange want to write and support it's own iPhone-unlock hack?
Of course ... I should have made it clear that I was only pointing out that the iPhone doesn't fall under the typical procedures followed by AT&T in regard to unlocking.
There are a few things that are still puzzling me about the plans Apple have for the release of the iPhone in different territories:
1) Given that the laws in various countries differ, in regard to consumer rights, will Apple be providing different firmware builds for each country?
2) If so, are they going to release different hardware builds for each country with the express purpose of stopping a US consumer from installing a Belgian firmware on their iPhone (when and if the iPhone gets released there - given that Belgian mobile phones are not to be sold with any form of 'lock').
3) If the hardware is exactly the same, what method will be used to determine which firmware to install? I assume that the IMEI number will be used to determine which firmware is valid for said handset. If this is the case, I expect that this will make it much easier for the 'hackers' to provide an unlocked phone in any territory.
I've got more, but my morning coffee hasn't kicked in and my stream of consciousness is but a trickle.
Not that I'm saying that this is how it will be done. Just that it is possible.
Of course ... I should have made it clear that I was only pointing out that the iPhone doesn't fall under the typical procedures followed by AT&T in regard to unlocking.
There are a few things that are still puzzling me about the plans Apple have for the release of the iPhone in different territories:
1) Given that the laws in various countries differ, in regard to consumer rights, will Apple be providing different firmware builds for each country?
2) If so, are they going to release different hardware builds for each country with the express purpose of stopping a US consumer from installing a Belgian firmware on their iPhone (when and if the iPhone gets released there - given that Belgian mobile phone are not to be sold with any form of 'lock').
3) If the hardware is exactly the same, what method will be used to determine which formware to install? I assume that the IMEI number will be used to determine which firmware is valid for said handset. If this is the case, I expect that this will make it much easier for the 'hackers' to provide an unlocked phone in any territory.
I've got more, but my morning coffee hasn't kicked in and my stream of consciousness is but a trickle.
It's a complicated question, isn't it?
Just curious here. It's theoretical, of course.
What if AI charged a membership fee. Then what if a number of members wanted to do something that AI disallowed, and they wrote software to work around AI's rules spelt out in the required contract that one must agree to when joining?
How would you then feel?
After all, members might insist that they are paying a fee to join, and so therefore they have to right to mofify your sites' software to enable then to do something that yours doesn't permit. One of those things could be the uploading of pictures to your servers, as the software can allow, but doesn't, as that function is turned off.
What would be the reaction from you and those others running the site?
It's a complicated question, isn't it?
Just curious here. It's theoretical, of course.
What if AI charged a membership fee. Then what if a number of members wanted to do something that AI disallowed, and they wrote software to work around AI's rules spelt out in the required contract that one must agree to when joining?
How would you then feel?
After all, members might insist that they are paying a fee to join, and so therefore they have to right to mofify your sites' software to enable then to do something that yours doesn't permit. One of those things could be the uploading of pictures to your servers, as the software can allow, but doesn't, as that function is turned off.
What would be the reaction from you and those others running the site?
Heh. Given that a majority of the people browsing the site are running AdBlock Plus on Firefox, they've already figured out one way to 'hack' the site.
I'll say this: If we were charging a fee to use the site, I would make damned certain to allow as much as technically possible for those users who had paid. Of course, I'd also do my best to ensure the integrity of the system.
If I hadn't made myself clear in the past, in my forum posts on the iPhone, I don't begrudge Apple for trying to keep the system closed nor for protecting their revenue stream with AT&T. I do, however, wonder what they have in store, considering that the available third-party software is miles ahead of what I expect Apple to release for the platform. I also don't have a problem with people hacking the iPhone, as long as they feel no sense of entitlement.
Since I'll finally have an iPhone this week, I'm sure I'll be running 1.0.2 for quite some time. I just hope that when it finally gets released up here I'll be able to update the firmware to a legitimate state.
Heh. Given that a majority of the people browsing the site are running AdBlock Plus on Firefox, they've already figured out one way to 'hack' the site.
I'll say this: If we were charging a fee to use the site, I would make damned certain to allow as much as technically possible for those users who had paid. Of course, I'd also do my best to ensure the integrity of the system.
If I hadn't made myself clear in the past, in my forum posts on the iPhone, I don't begrudge Apple for trying to keep the system closed nor for protecting their revenue stream with AT&T. I do, however, wonder what they have in store, considering that the available third-party software is miles ahead of what I expect Apple to release for the platform. I also don't have a problem with people hacking the iPhone, as long as they feel no sense of entitlement.
Since I'll finally have an iPhone this week, I'm sure I'll be running 1.0.2 for quite some time. I just hope that when it finally gets released up here I'll be able to update the firmware to a legitimate state.
Fair enough.
I hope it does get up there.