Apple targets iPhone hackers
You mess with your iPhone, you void your warranty.
That’s the blunt message Apple sent to the iPhone hacking community in a statement it issued yesterday. Many had wondered when or if Apple would retaliate against the widespread unlocking schemes and other iPhone hacks that have emerged over the past two months on the Internet.
Here’s what Apple had to say:
Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.
While I think Apple is stretching it by describing software damage as “irreparable” – it’s rare that you can’t simply reinstall software on an otherwise undamaged piece of hardware – I believe the company when it says the upcoming software update is incompatible with many of the hacks. And Apple in no way wants to be in the business of ensuring that every screwball hack will work on the iPhone as it continues to update and enhance both the hardware and the software. (I’d like to point out here that I’m not equating third-party software designed to run on the iPhone with hacks that modify the built-in software, hardware or firmware. I believe Apple should re-think opening the iPhone up to third party apps.)
Some folks on Apple’s iPhone support forum questioned Apple’s motives, wondering if AT&T was pressuring Apple to crack down on the unlocking software. Every time someone unlocks an iPhone, AT&T loses a customer as well as the revenue from that customer. Nevertheless, I don’t think Apple needed a push from AT&T. It has plenty of its own reasons for playing hardball with the hackers.
Apple has an almost psychotic need to control every aspect of its products. While it can’t prevent people from making unauthorized changes, it doesn’t have to support them. It never has and never will. This policy applies to everything the company makes. For example, among the many things my MacBook warranty does not cover is “a product or part that has been modified to significantly alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple.”
I understand that people want functionality that Apple has not provided. That’s why the hacks have proven so popular. History tells us that eventually Apple will implement some of the hacks into future versions of the iPhone. But in the meantime Apple needed to do something dramatic to show it wasn’t tacitly condoning the hacks by inaction.
As the hacks have spread and become easier to implement, Apple must have worried more and more people would feel it was OK to do it. Recognizing that the iPhone was turning into a DRM-like situation, in which hackers would invariably break whatever locks Apple could devise, the company saw the need to adopt a different strategy. By making a public pronouncement on the evils of hacking the iPhone, Apple is seeking to shield itself of all consequences while frightening most iPhone owners from ever trying it in the first place.
Apple also wanted to fire a preemptive strike against a PR disaster in which an iPhone software update – such as the one due out this week – would “brick” thousands of hacked iPhones. Having just soothed the fury over the unexpectedly rapid $200 price drop, Apple would prefer not to have its retail stores filled with crowds of even angrier iPhone owners waving (or hurling) their useless devices at the heads of hapless Mac Geniuses.
Now Apple can say, “You were warned.” People who end up with a dead iPhone as a result of running the update on a hacked unit will have themselves to blame. Apple’s statement has preemptively drained much of the venom from the inevitable complaints that will arise from bricked iPhones.
Some may object to the severity of Apple’s policy, but the company has little choice. Hacks are risky. That’s why they’re called “hacks.” Apple simply refuses to share that risk with anyone who chooses to hack his iPhone. Makes sense to me.
What do you think?
Comments
Nice article. And I totally agree with your assessment and perspective in this article. I've seen too many other over-reacting analysts jump on the criticize-Apple bandwagon of late all because Apple issued a warning that its upcoming iPhone update could brick some hacked iPhones. Those who criticize Apple for doing this are totally brainless. I feel Apple was perfectly right for issuing this warning in advance, and that it doing so has nothing at all to do with Apple's greed or anything else, but rather only because Apple very much knew that the coming update would likely brick certain hacked Phones (not on purpose, but because that is what it found out from testing its update on hacked phones in its labs). Therefore, Apple would have been severely foolish to release such an update and not warn people about it. But by warning everyone in advance, those who then chose to run the update, if it then bricked your iphone then it wouldn't come as a total surprise to you, so you could hardly blame Apple. So Apple is defusing this potential firestorm in advance. And it is right for doing so.
Secondly, I totally agree that Apple should not have to go out of its way to spend any money or time to support hacked phones. And I don't think there is a law in the land that could force Apple to do otherwise. Some analyst mentioned this obscure law - The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act - which states that Apple cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product. But I feel even with that law it only applies to sanctioned third party enhancements and enhancements officially approved by the company. Yes, it makes sense to support those enhancements - but not unofficial tinkering by any Tom, Dick, and Harry. Not some oddball hacker hacking the phone in whatever way they want and feel like Apple has to support it. No so. If that was the case, then I could simply hack my Mercedes car, saw a hole in the roof to install propellers, and then modify the engine to install a giant blower to turn it into a helicopter. So does that mean that the Mercedes company still have to support my modifications and still have to ensure that the car runs and runs well despite all the things I've done to it? Not so. Don't be ridiculous. There's no law in the land that can enforce such a thing. And neither can any law force Apple to support the work of hackers.
I love your article. It is much more sensible and well-though-out perspective. Not at all like the brainless battle cries I've heard of late coming from other so-called analysts. Cheers.
Posted by: scarlet squirrel | September 25, 2007 9:41 PM
I wonder how many iPhone buyers this affects?
Posted by: Neil Anderson | September 30, 2007 6:17 PM
A piece of software that is designed to break a piece of hardware sounds like a virus to me.
I suspect that Apple would not be pleased if someone else wrote a program that "bricked" the i-phone.
Hard to imagine that Apple would support such a thing let alone write their own.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 6:10 AM