I am not an apple fanboy at all, but it seems to me if they brick the iphone in any future updates it just seals the deal for the rapid decline in any apple hardware. I think if they brick 500,000 or more phones that people paid 400-600 dollars for, there will be a serious effect on the future sales of any of their hardware, because people will feel like they are just wasting money. I dont know, but thats just what I think. I dont think Apple will really brick anyones phones.

Just one more reason to save my dollars for the OpenMoko Neo 197x. Due out soon...

True, but AT&T may be forcing their hand. *shrug*

This kind of nonsense is part of the reason I sold my PSP. The other part is that the games sucked.

@leetgeek: We are talking about a handful of people here, not the Gizfudo suggested 500,000.

i'm an attorney too and i think an argument can be made that the "damage" was not done by the third party apps but by the firmware update. i get that the phones were used outside of the scope of the user agreement. but it certainly is a foreseeable use. like the giz lawyer said, the lawsuit may not prevail, but i think it would have enough merit to provide media fodder to an extent that apple would not be comfortable with.

Yup. Apple's in kind of a tough spot here. AT&T has to be screaming in their ear about these unlocks but the truth is there's really not anything Apple can do except patch over them and issue statements calling changed code permanent damage.

I know the unlocking haters seem to be of the opinion that Apple would be within their rights to try and permanently brick the phones but in the real world they'd get sued so fast it would make your head spin if they succeeded in destroying users perfectly functional iPhones.

Of course, that's if it was even possible. If this demonstrates anything, it's how unlikely that would be. You change the code. You change it back. There's not that much going on here.

Thanks to the iPhone Dev team for all their hard work and don't forget to contribute. My unlocked phone works great and I'm not at all worried.

The 1.1.1 firmware update is available now. Go get it guys!

Here's a thought....

Just sign up with AT&T and you don't have any problems! Wow, what a concept!

Holy cow....it's 152mb!

@leetgeek: You should get some new reading glasses

Apple has multiple ways of upgrading the [firmware of the] baseband [radio chip] without committing a 500,000-phone massacre.

It says "without". So like FALCONFIRE said, it would only be a handful.

@frostoy: Yeah, for all those people who live abroad that's a fantastic option!

The Apple is quickly becoming rotten what-with all the lockdown antics on their best handheld items (iPod touch and iPhone). They're only killing sales by doing so. Many more people would buy a touch if there was an official SDK and 3rd party apps were encouraged.

The one issue NOT addressed here is that any update is OPTIONAL for end-users. End users can always choose not to apply the updates from Apple (and forgo the "enhanced" features in the update) while retaining their unlocked phones. This ability to "opt-out" of the update insulates Apple from most litigation.
If Apple chose to FORCE this update (via OTA or otherwise) and brick the unlocked phones then they would have a much bigger legal problem.

Question: If I restore my iPhone to factory settings now, will this future update still brick my iPhone if I installed 3rd party apps on it before I restored it?

The dev team would be a lot more credible if they'd stop throwing around gigantic numbers like "500,000" that everyone (including them) knows are hugely overblown. That's almost as much FUD as what Apple is spewing.

so, reports indicate the update is out, how have people fared with updating sim-unlocked phones?

Maybe if we're lucky Apple will be in the centre of the perfect legal storm - sued by the unlockers for bricking their phones and sued by AT&T for not bricking phones fast enough and thereby breaching AT&T's right of quiet enjoyment and other contractual provisions. asolution would be for Apple to return most of AT&T's money, and then sell the phone unlocked for use on any GSM Network, but I guess that wouldn't work because Apple wanted to make money from (1) sales of phones, (2) sale of exclusive rights and (3) ongoing usage fees. Well, AT&T paid a lot for #2, and I expect them to use all legal levers to protect their purchase.

I really can't beleive I am taking AT&T's side here after years of crappy service, but I stronly beleive that when Apple sells something for big bucks (exclusivity) they have an obligation to deliver. All the Apple fanboys should be mad at Apple, not AT&T - it was Apple that wanted this licensing model.

I heard AT&T was behind every war and natural disaster since their birth in 1885. Thats not my wireless provider!

Call me stupid, but what's the point of unlocking the phone? I understand the "because it's there" mentality, but I don't see the practicality of it.

As I understand it, you MUST get an AT&T 2 year contract with it, so if you unlock the phone & go with another carrier, aren't you now paying 2 cell phone bills instead of just one?

Sure, some may live outside the US, but Apple is releasing it in UK & Germany soon, and I'm sure it'll roll out in other countries & on other carriers. If you're getting an iPhone & unlocking it, who's paying the AT&T contract?

Do people really hate AT&T that much? I'm on VZW, and they've got their issues, but I don't hate 'em enough to leave 'em. If I did, I'd just get a phone that worked on another network when I switched.

I guess I'm just really confused. Any civilized answers are welcome.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that maybe Old Job-boy and his gang saw this coming and made plans for it? I see lot'so very free publicity here.

@Joseph: well first of all I didnt say they will definately brick their phones. I said I dont think they would, because it would be a stupid move. Yes, they probably have millions and millions of ways to update their firmware without bricking the phones, but who says at&t will allow them to use these firmware upgrade methods.

@leetgeek:
I do not like Apple AT ALL, but I fail to see how this is going to lead to decline. ONLY those who choose to unlock the phone might see bricking, and how is this Apple's fault at all? What is wrong about taking legal action to fight illegal modification?

Your kind of thinking is what creates the sea of piracy in China.

@FreeMan: The reason for me to unlock is that I will be taking a two week trip to Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines and Thailand. I want to use pre-paid SIM cards in those countries while on vacation and NOT pay the outrageous AT&T roaming rates. When I get back, I will resume my AT&T service...

@ Freeman
No, you don't have to get a contract with it. I live in the UK and I will *not* be paying £35 a month for a deal that i can get for £20 on a different network. That is why I will be unlocking my iPhone.

They tell you that you "must" get a 2 year AT&T contract because that's the only carrier the phone will legally work through.

But in actuality, you buy the phone at the AT&T store, then go home and set up the account yourself. They don't sit there and actually make you do anything.

lmao, it's a good read, however we live in a place called America with retailers like bestbuy or frys and corporations like apple. Whether or not a skilled lawyer and dev team can wrangle the English language in such a way that they feel they aren't 'damaging' the iPhone doesn't mean jack. going to file a class action lawsuit if apple voids you warranty? great. give me a call in five years.

while i appreciate the effort which has gone into this article, most of it is 'well apple says x but it's really y' which doesn't matter if apple sticks to their party line.

@FreeMan:
You don't actually sign up with AT&T until you activate the iPhone through iTunes. If you skip the activation and use an unlock on the phone, AT&T sees nothing from you. The one thing they do see though, is that they sold X amount of phones and only Y number of activations which is why they could get on Apples case about the phone unlocks, the number you get from X-Y is all lost revenue for them.

Thank you, Jesus, for including some legal insight into the situation. It is obvious that Apple needs to protect its investments and its business partners (in this case, AT&T), but they can do so without intentionally hurting their customers. If you want to make modifications to a product you own, that's your right. But, you also have to understand what modifying said product could lead to, including possibly damaging it. It's up to each individual to decide what they want to do with their iPhone, but the responsibility of voiding your warranty is ultimately yours.

Gizmodo!!! Stop, Stop, Stop with the Star Wars references. It was funny the first few times, but now its getting really old. You guys are killing it for me. Use something esle!

I knew it. Needless to say more, my comment to the article on the subject was accurate.

Actually this is no different to flashing the DVD drives to be region free.

Apple has outlined what is covered by warranty and the altering of the iPhone (software/hardware) is definately a breach of warranty just like the fireware hacks to change the DVD drives to Multizone.

All I can say to everyone who supposedly is going to be the proud owner of a $500 brick is:

Ha Ha.

i agree, i think it's alot more of apple throwing their corporate weight around and Apple giving them a hand in doing so. The backlash against apple may be devastating to their hardware sales in the future if enough publicity is given to this.

I think it's less of Apple throwing their weight around and more about them covering their asses.

I think it's funny that everyone thinks that this is an intentional act on Apple's part. The fact is that people are out there mucking around with the low level software on these phones and Apple should be in now way held responsible for testing their updates to work on those phones.

The article above mentions that Apple could have done this or that to ensure that unlocked phones wouldn't be damage, but why should they? By adding that level of protection, they are adding to the internal cost of the update, which will be passed on onto their users. And why would any company make an effort to protect people who are costing them revenue? With Apple getting a slice of each monthly bill it is in their best financial interests to keep that money coming in.

Why does nobody whine about Sprint phones that can't be used with other providers?

So it's only available on AT&T...so what, all cell phone providers suck, so what's the difference? You want to use it in another country? Too bad, it's not available there. Should it be? Yes, but it's not.

The bottom line is that everyone knows that the iPhone only officially works with AT&T when they buy one. As a consumer, you are making.

Everyone has the right to modify whatever product they own in whatever fashion they please, be it something simple or otherwise, but the manufacturer of that product is under no obligation to maintain compatibility to those who do.

As Apple warned earlier this week, the latest firmware update did, in fact, "break" unlocked iPhones and kill unofficial 3rd party iPhone apps. It's still not clear how intentional this was, but it still seems like something that Apple should have made at least a little more of an effort to avoid.

seriously, if you brick it, there's still warranty. so go drop a few drops of a water into the headphone jack, let it dry and claim it died on its own. they'll give you a new one. apple sucks.

honestly, why hate on microsoft when apple is a huge prick?

My hope: Dev team hacks firmware updates and releases their own 'update stream' to integrate new features and bugfixes without bricking.

The issue here is in regards to apples intentional bricking of the hacked iphones. If apple would have upgraded the entire firmware all phones would act the same after the update whether they were hacked or not. They would be back in a locked state and fully functional. If this was the case no one would have a valid point to complain about. AT&T should be frustrated because it just cost them customers. If the phone was put back in a locked state iPhone users would realize that they will have to either keep there AT&T account or go without a cell phone everytime apple locks it back up.

@Skyyboy: @xanderbeedle: @shocker: @Havok154:

Just in case you guys come back by... Thanks for the civilized answers! Other than the travel, those are all reasons that had never occurred to me. Much obliged.

See you dumbass fan boys . . . Apple sucks. They are great at marketing and building a pretty device but like the shiny rocking horse in the window is rotten to the core.

I think the issue here is that you can legaly purchase an iphone without ATT service. Since you can do this, you have signed no contract to use the phone with that service. Part of the selling point of the phone is the regular updates that apple supplies through itunes. Now, you have a legaly purchased phone, no obligation to use ATT, and updates that you should receive from apple. Now you go and unlock, or install your apps, and you void your warranty, which is reasonable. However, it is not reasonable and of questionable legality for apple to supply you with the promised updates, but with a specific intent of damaging your phone that is unlocked or contains 3rd party apps. Apple may have the right to void your warranty and refuse you service, but they dont have the right to purposely damage a phone they dont feel is being used in a manner they originally intended. If these updates happened to inadvertently cause some damage, then that would still at best make them look bad, but it seems they have gone out of their way to make sure this happens. Apple is at a turning point as to how they will deal with this from now on. Getting into an all out hacking war seems ridiculous, and will only tarnish their image. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.