Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

besson3c · Oct 10, 2007, 10:36 AM

Apparently there is a new version of Jailbreak that will soon be available that works by exploiting a Safari security hole involving TIFF images (perhaps a buffer overrun or something?)

This is all just dumb.

I'd be willing to wager a guess that the people unlocking their iPhones are the same kind of people that just *must* have the latest and greatest shiny thing. They feel compelled to upgrade their iPhone firmware as often as they safely can.

Is this game of cat and mouse and back and forth with Apple really worth it? It's just a goddamn phone. As cool a phone as it is, is it really worth this constant effort, research, risk, and hassle? The amount of time you have spent playing this game can be spent doing so much more. Just give it up, you are using a product that is heavily restricted, those are the rules of the game. If you don't like it, don't get an iPhone - this is not going to change. This is the price of your infatuation with a company that is at its core very closed and proprietary. Couple this with cell phone companies that are equally protective, perhaps even more, and you are guaranteed to be in a losing proposition if your definition of winning is escaping this while using these products.

Cold Warrior · Oct 10, 2007, 10:42 AM

Meh. I don't think it's dumb. People love a challenge, and hacking the iPhone is the ultimate geek challenge right now. Plus, the iPhone is a great device not yet available in many popular GSM markets, so it's no surprise people want it.

turtle777 · Oct 10, 2007, 10:46 AM

I think it's dumb for anyone who is NOT the ultra geek.

The whole point of the iPhone is to have something that is easy to use and just works. Hacking the iPhone just completely ruins that experience and proposition.

For 99.5% of the people, it doesn't make sense at all to even think about it.

-t

besson3c · Oct 10, 2007, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

Meh. I don't think it's dumb. People love a challenge, and hacking the iPhone is the ultimate geek challenge right now. Plus, the iPhone is a great device not yet available in many popular GSM markets, so it's no surprise people want it.

I can fully understand the draw for the hackers, I have that spirit within me too... What I was referring to was the consumers of the hacked software - people just waiting around for the thing to be hacked, and the price paid to play this game.

MacosNerd · Oct 10, 2007, 10:47 AM

I agree, spending this much money to try to hack the phone, with the potential of bricking it, voiding the warranty (or at least apple not honoring it) is foolish, it is however their money and if they want to mess around with the phone that's their business.

What is funny is that when apple closes those loop holes or bricks the phone, they complain like apple has no right in dis-allowing them from hacking the phones. bricking it is another issue, I don't think that's sound business policy on apple's part even if the phone is hacked.

Big Mac · Oct 10, 2007, 10:52 AM

The dumb thing is to release a computing platform that completely locks out third party development, aside from lame widget support.

besson3c · Oct 10, 2007, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I agree, spending this much money to try to hack the phone, with the potential of bricking it, voiding the warranty (or at least apple not honoring it) is foolish, it is however their money and if they want to mess around with the phone that's their business.

What is funny is that when apple closes those loop holes or bricks the phone, they complain like apple has no right in dis-allowing them from hacking the phones. bricking it is another issue, I don't think that's sound business policy on apple's part even if the phone is hacked.

Apple does *not* have a right to intentionally sabotage attempts. Protecting their own interests is one thing, intentionally trying to sabotage is another.

I haven't yet decided which accurately characterizes Apple.

JonoMarshall · Oct 10, 2007, 10:57 AM

I think we're blowing it all out of proportion:

Nerds looking for a challenge,
Super-rich folk needing to roam and show-off an iPhone,
Early adopters living in a "no-iPhone" zone,

It's a good thing someone's pointing out all the security holes to Apple and making the general public aware of the rough (locked-down) deal iPhone customers can expect. Other than that... meh.

goMac · Oct 10, 2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Apparently there is a new version of Jailbreak that will soon be available that works by exploiting a Safari security hole involving TIFF images (perhaps a buffer overrun or something?)

Unlocking and jailbreaking are entirely different things. I agree unlocking is dumb. But 3rd party apps are not.

besson3c · Oct 10, 2007, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Unlocking and jailbreaking are entirely different things. I agree unlocking is dumb. But 3rd party apps are not.

Good point.

osiris · Oct 10, 2007, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The dumb thing is to release a computing platform that completely locks out third party development, aside from lame widget support.

Absofrickinlutely.

besson3c · Oct 10, 2007, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall

I think we're blowing it all out of proportion:

Nerds looking for a challenge,
Super-rich folk needing to roam and show-off an iPhone,
Early adopters living in a "no-iPhone" zone,

It's a good thing someone's pointing out all the security holes to Apple and making the general public aware of the rough (locked-down) deal iPhone customers can expect. Other than that... meh.

Like I said, it's not that I'm against hackers doing this, I just think it's a losing proposition for those wishing to be consumers of this hacked software, which includes the rich and no-phone zone crowd.

Goldfinger · Oct 10, 2007, 11:17 AM

Locking is dumb in the first place and should be illegal everywhere.

Some newspaper here is giving away 3 unlocked iPhones they bought in the US. It's the only way to get one here for the coming years I guess since locked phones and phones tied to contracts are illegal.

mdc · Oct 10, 2007, 12:02 PM

I didn't unlock my 1.0.2 iPhone, but I did install 3rd party apps on it. It was cool while it lasted and I liked the eBook reader.
I haven't missed 3rd party apps though. In my opinion there wasn't anything released that made me think twice about upgrading.

My condolences to people who unlocked their 1.0.2 iPhone and now can't activate it because of a messed up IMEI number. I do think it sucks that the 1.1.1 update has been out for a few weeks and the hackers have not released their promised relocker application.

AngelaBaby · Oct 10, 2007, 12:08 PM

Unlocking = sticking it to the man.

stick on n3rds!

Laminar · Oct 10, 2007, 12:31 PM

Wow.

On a related note, I played with an iPod Touch today, and I'm torn. I reeeeally want one, but I'm not sure if I can justify spending the money. Especially since I'm dumping a bunch into my car right now.

Big Mac · Oct 10, 2007, 12:44 PM

I say wait at least for the 2G touch.

analogue SPRINKLES · Oct 10, 2007, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'd be willing to wager a guess that the people unlocking their iPhones are the same kind of people that just *must* have the latest and greatest shiny thing. They feel compelled to upgrade their iPhone firmware as often as they safely can.

Ya so what is wrong with that?

My Blackberry was costing me $35 a month for 500k of data a MONTH.

I got my iPhone which isn't avalible her in Canada in mid august and it is the best techie device I have ever got and it is actually saving me money.

The sad/funny thing is it is cheaper to get a non-blackberry plan so for $10 a month I get 10 megs of data which is more than enough for email. Even better my provider just gave me the plan for free.

So since I got the iPhone I am saving $10 a month, not having to carry a phone and a iPod everywhere I go and it is the coolest thing in the world to have and use.

So what if apple comes out with a new update blocking me. I am still happily using the 1.0.2 firmware and have no itch to get 1.1.1. But if I want it all I have to do is wait a couple of weeks till the nerds get things in order and I have all the nifty new features.

mdc · Oct 10, 2007, 02:05 PM

According to tuaw.com:

A blue-and-green birdy is tweeting in our ears, this time telling us that iPhones running 1.1.2 firmware have been spotted in the UK during Apple training sessions.
Is this good news or bad news for the hackers? Well, it's hard to tell but clearly if 1.1.2 is already in use, it hasn't been patched to handle the ongoing exploits that have been filling your RSS feeds the last few hours.

If this is true, I don't think 1.1.2 is bringing any new features, but it probably closed the TIFF hole.
I could see people upgrading to 1.1.1 for the features and not upgrading to 1.1.2.

Big Mac · Oct 10, 2007, 02:14 PM

At least this arms race is causing Apple to pack new features into its updates in order to entice people to apply them.

nonhuman · Oct 10, 2007, 02:50 PM

If it weren't for people hacking their computers and devices we probably wouldn't have half the useful features we all take for granted nowadays.

iMOTOR · Oct 10, 2007, 03:03 PM

I thought the whole point of unlocking was so you didn't have to go with at&t?

I considered buying a iPhone and unlocking it to work with t-mobile so I wouldn't have sign a 2 year contract with satan.

I'll just wait till Apple lets t-mobile in.

nonhuman · Oct 10, 2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

I'll just wait till Apple lets t-mobile in.

It's not up to Apple. The only way they could get AT&T to carry the iPhone was to sign that damned exclusivity contract. So AT&T and only AT&T will carry the iPhone for however many years the terms of the contract were for (I want to say 5, but I can never remember).

I guarantee you, however, that this was all AT&Ts idea, not Apple's. If the iPhone could be used on other networks, more would be sold without a doubt. There's no way Apple would give up all those sales if they didn't have to. I'm just pissed that Verizon passed on the iPhone. I would much much much rather have a CDMA/EVDO iPhone than the GSM/EDGE one I've got. But I wouldn't really have expected Verizon to lighten up their standard restrictions on phones just for Apple.

What I'm hoping is that there's some loophole in the contract that will allow Apple to release a different model of iPhone that isn't bound by the exclusivity clause in the AT&T contract. But we shall see.

OAW · 03:51 PM

That is exactly why unlocking is not dumb. Some people just don't like AT&T service. Some people can't get AT&T service. And some people are out of their T-Mobile contract and would rather not sign up for a 2 year contract with AT&T on an unsubsidized phone. And on top of that, T-Mobile just gives you more for your money. A quick comparison ...

AT&T - $59.99

- 450 minutes, 5000 minutes nights & weekends, 200 SMS messages, unlimited data, unlimited mobile to mobile minutes

T-Mobile - $39.99 Individual Prime + $19.99 Internet Add-On Plan

- 1000 minutes, 0 minutes nights & weekends, unlimited data, 0 mobile to mobile minutes

T-Mobile - $49.99 Individual Plus + $19.99 Internet Add-On Plan

- 1000 minutes, unlimited minutes nights & weekends, unlimited data, 0 mobile to mobile minutes

T-Mobile - $49.99 MyFaves 600 + $19.99 Internet Add-On Plan

- 600 minutes, unlimited minutes to any 5 numbers, unlimited minutes nights & weekends, unlimited data, 0 mobile to mobile minutes

Personally, I'd be inclined to do the MyFaves 600 plan. That "mobile to mobile" stuff only benefits you if you happen to call somebody using an AT&T cell phone. I'd much rather be able to not use my minutes for the people I talk to the most. Might even be able to save an extra $10/month and drop down to the MyFaves 300 plan as a result of this feature.

OAW

OAW · Oct 10, 2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

It's not up to Apple. The only way they could get AT&T to carry the iPhone was to sign that damned exclusivity contract. So AT&T and only AT&T will carry the iPhone for however many years the terms of the contract were for (I want to say 5, but I can never remember).

I guarantee you, however, that this was all AT&Ts idea, not Apple's. If the iPhone could be used on other networks, more would be sold without a doubt. There's no way Apple would give up all those sales if they didn't have to. I'm just pissed that Verizon passed on the iPhone. I would much much much rather have a CDMA/EVDO iPhone than the GSM/EDGE one I've got. But I wouldn't really have expected Verizon to lighten up their standard restrictions on phones just for Apple.

I'm not so sure this is all on AT&T. While I'm sure AT&T pushed for exclusivity in order to make the necessary changes to support Visual Voicemail, Apple also has to offer exclusivity to the carrier in order to get the revenue sharing deals enjoys.

OAW

nonhuman · Oct 10, 2007, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

I'm not so sure this is all on AT&T. While I'm sure AT&T pushed for exclusivity in order to make the necessary changes to support Visual Voicemail, Apple also has to offer exclusivity to the carrier in order to get the revenue sharing deals enjoys.

OAW

True, I definitely wouldn't let Apple entirely off the hook. But it seems to me that they would probably prefer a greater volume of sales over revenue sharing (although obviously they'd much prefer both...). Once someone buys an iPhone they've basically locked themselves into the whole iTunes paradigm. I'm sure that a greater number of iPhone/iPod sales leads directly to greater iTMS sales revenues. Although it may be that Apple is trying to diversify their revenue streams to minimize the damage if various lawsuits and rulings around the world result in them having to open up the iPod platform to music from other sources.

Either way I suspect—and Apple probably has done a lot of research into this—that Apple's bottom line as well as their brand would be much better served if the iPhone could be used on any carrier.

besson3c · Oct 10, 2007, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

That is exactly why unlocking is not dumb. Some people just don't like AT&T service. Some people can't get AT&T service. And some people are out of their T-Mobile contract and would rather not sign up for a 2 year contract with AT&T on an unsubsidized phone. And on top of that, T-Mobile just gives you more for your money. A quick comparison ...

AT&T - $59.99

- 450 minutes, 5000 minutes nights & weekends, 200 SMS messages, unlimited data, unlimited mobile to mobile minutes

T-Mobile - $39.99 Individual Prime + $19.99 Internet Add-On Plan

- 1000 minutes, 0 minutes nights & weekends, unlimited data, 0 mobile to mobile minutes

T-Mobile - $49.99 Individual Plus + $19.99 Internet Add-On Plan

- 1000 minutes, unlimited minutes nights & weekends, unlimited data, 0 mobile to mobile minutes

T-Mobile - $49.99 MyFaves 600 + $19.99 Internet Add-On Plan

- 600 minutes, unlimited minutes to any 5 numbers, unlimited minutes nights & weekends, unlimited data, 0 mobile to mobile minutes

Personally, I'd be inclined to do the MyFaves 600 plan. That "mobile to mobile" stuff only benefits you if you happen to call somebody using an AT&T cell phone. I'd much rather be able to not use my minutes for the people I talk to the most. Might even be able to save an extra $10/month and drop down to the MyFaves 300 plan as a result of this feature.

OAW

It sounds like under these circumstances what is dumb is getting an AT&T account in the first place?

::maroma:: · Oct 10, 2007, 04:59 PM

I think most people can agree that the act of hacking is very important thing that moves the industry forward in its own special way. And to those people who want to hack the iPhone, more power to them.

What bugs me is when these hackers start yelling and screaming and opening up lawsuits against Apple when they run an update that they were warned not to, and it ends up messing with their iPhones. First, no one forced them to purchase an iPhone. They purchased one knowing how it all works, knowing it was a closed environment, knowing that Apple does not mess around in this area (with any of their products). Second, they knowingly and willingly broke the License Agreement the second they unlocked their iPhone. At that point, Apple is no longer part of the equation. Apple has absolutely zero obligations to said hacker.

So why is it that we have this hatred towards Apple from these users who have put themselves into this position, ignoring repeated warnings from Apple? I can understand the philosophical argument about locked down cell phones, etc., and how we should all have freedom when it comes to technology. But what I don't understand is how people immediately say "hey, I hacked my iPhone, and I foolishly ran the 1.1.1 update even though Apple repeatedly told me not to, now my phone is a brick so I hate/am suing Apple!"

Also, lets be clear here. Its recently been found by examining the 1.1.1 code that Apple did not maliciously break people's phones. Yes, it was a poorly written update, but there was no action taken by Apple to kill hacked phones. So I think this whole notion of an evil Steve demanding all hacked iPhones be killed should be scrapped.

And there should also be some level of patience here. People are demanding the iPhone (which is only 3.5 months old!) be everything they ever wanted and more. There is a pretty reliable rumor that Apple is working on a public SDK that will use an authorization system that will allow 3rd party developers to write apps and sell them through iTunes. This is what people want, and if you ask me, it will happen. Its just a matter of when. What happened to patience? 3.5 months and we all expect the iPhone to be a perfect device. I challenge anyone to show me a perfect "smart phone" device. How old is the Treo line? How old is the Blackberry line?

To sum up my stupidly long post, I really think people are blowing this whole thing out of proportion, and I think people are unfairly jumping to conclusions with little to no information. We need to give Apple some time. This is the first time they've done anything like this. Call me a fanboy if you wish, but I tend to feel that if you give a company like Apple some slack, they will deliver what you are looking for. And they will deliver it better than any other company out there.

Or you can just sue em. Whatever.

OAW · Oct 10, 2007, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Either way I suspect—and Apple probably has done a lot of research into this—that Apple's bottom line as well as their brand would be much better served if the iPhone could be used on any carrier.

Well again, I will have to respectfully disagree. Simply put, the iPhone can be used on any carrier. Well any GSM carrier that is. GSM is a worldwide standard ... so any GSM phone can be used on any GSM carrier that uses the radio frequencies supported by the phone. And since the iPhone is a quad-band phone it can, in fact, function on any GSM carrier in the world. Apple nor the user doesn't need "permission" from the carrier. If the phone were unlocked, then simply popping in the carrier's SIM card would allow the iPhone to function like any other GSM phone.

Apple decided to lock the iPhone to an exclusive carrier because it benefited Apple. If they wanted to sell more phones they could have easily sold the iPhone unlocked. But they apparently valued the recurring revenue kickbacks from AT&T more than higher unit sales.

OAW

Andy8 · Oct 10, 2007, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Well again, I will have to respectfully disagree. Simply put, the iPhone can be used on any carrier. Well any GSM carrier that is. GSM is a worldwide standard ... so any GSM phone can be used on any GSM carrier that uses the radio frequencies supported by the phone. And since the iPhone is a quad-band phone it can, in fact, function on any GSM carrier in the world. Apple nor the user doesn't need "permission" from the carrier. If the phone were unlocked, then simply popping in the carrier's SIM card would allow the iPhone to function like any other GSM phone.

Apple decided to lock the iPhone to an exclusive carrier because it benefited Apple. If they wanted to sell more phones they could have easily sold the iPhone unlocked. But they apparently valued the recurring revenue kickbacks from AT&T more than higher unit sales.

OAW

Exactly.

analogika · Oct 10, 2007, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Apple decided to lock the iPhone to an exclusive carrier because it benefited Apple. If they wanted to sell more phones they could have easily sold the iPhone unlocked. But they apparently valued the recurring revenue kickbacks from AT&T more than higher unit sales.

That and visual voicemail, activation via iTunes, and whatever other carrier-bound features they might be planning that require actual investment from the service provider.

::maroma:: · Oct 10, 2007, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Apple decided to lock the iPhone to an exclusive carrier because it benefited Apple. If they wanted to sell more phones they could have easily sold the iPhone unlocked. But they apparently valued the recurring revenue kickbacks from AT&T more than higher unit sales.

OAW

Wow, a company looking out for its own interests. Color me not surprised.

There are actually a few possible (none of us really know for certain) reasons that Apple locked the iPhone to one carrier. But I would assume that yes, one of them would be to give Apple more revenue. And I would also assume that the very smart people at Apple crunched the numbers and found that indeed they would stand to gain more profit from kickbacks than from unit sales. Of course its also possible that weighing all of their options together, they found that kickbacks might not be as profitable as unit sales, but in the long run it was the proper decision for Apple. Not everything Apple does is for the people. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

brassplayersrock² · Oct 10, 2007, 08:41 PM

didn't apple sign a conclusive 4 or 5 year contract with at&t?

goMac · Oct 10, 2007, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock²

didn't apple sign a conclusive 4 or 5 year contract with at&t?

I thought it was two years. Regardless, Apple wanted a to market a phone where all the features they wanted worked, including visual voicemail. Rather than sell an unlocked phone and have people complain when their provider didn't support visual voicemail, Apple decided to go with a system where they could guarantee the whole widget worked. I think this is perfectly understandable. The long term solution is to create standards that other carriers can adopt for things such as visual voicemail.

OAW · Oct 10, 2007, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

That and visual voicemail, activation via iTunes, and whatever other carrier-bound features they might be planning that require actual investment from the service provider.

You make a good point. These features do require cooperation by the carrier. Having said that, I could personally do without visual voicemail if I could take advantage of the better T-Mobile plans. And activation wouldn't have been necessary for me since I already had a T-Mobile account. But of course, YMMV.

OAW

iMOTOR · Oct 10, 2007, 09:21 PM

I bet if T-Mobile could sell iPhones, they would implement visual voicemail in a heartbeat.

OAW · Oct 10, 2007, 09:22 PM

Apple's deal with AT&T is for 5 years. The contract users have to sign with AT&T is only for 2 years. Though this is pretty meaningless. Since AT&T refuses to issue unlock codes for the iPhone it doesn't matter if your contract is done. If you want to use the iPhone you are still stuck with AT&T for at least another 3 years. And nowadays the carriers make you sign a contract just to have service ... even if the phone is not subsidized. I for one can't wait until Congress outlaws this BS.

OAW

nonhuman · Oct 11, 2007, 11:08 AM

As I understand it, AT&T isn't refusing to issue unlock codes, per-se, it's that they can't because Apple isn't providing them. Not really sure though.

Wiskedjak · Oct 11, 2007, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Apparently there is a new version of Jailbreak that will soon be available that works by exploiting a Safari security hole involving TIFF images (perhaps a buffer overrun or something?)

Yep. They're the same people who are jumping up and down when Apple releases an OS patch.