Sounds a lot like the Magnuson-Moss act. From Wikipedia:
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions[3], and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."
However, there are reasons outside of branding to require an unbroken iPhone 3.2 OS to be on the device. The OS is obviously necessary for the proper functioning of the iPad. Apple doesn't test the iPad with Cydia and various modifications available through jailbreaking. What's more, they are demonstrably less stable. I know this for a fact, because I have a jailbroken iPhone OS device.
Another tack: I am thinking of writing an App which would enable DRM for the user (as opposed to DRM against the user) so that people could share pictures and documents, and be assured that the shared copy is erased at a certain point in time and never present in an unencrypted form, except in RAM at the time the data is being used. This would work fine on non-jailbroken iPads. (Not strong enough for espoinage work, but enough to establish a CYA audit trail with corporate documents with an NDA.) Unfortunately, there can be no expectation of this working for jailbroken devices.
(I'm also going to put in the FAQ, that this is not a safe way to share pictures and assure they won't wind up on the Internet. The iPad's screen is high resolution and people can just photograph it.)
It's up to me as the owner to determine what "proper functioning" means. Clearly you can't ask Apple to fix it if it's crashing because it's jailbroken. But if the display fails, that's not reasonably caused by running another OS.
Not true. Poorly written device drivers can damage hardware. I'm a freetard and apple hater, but I think apple has every right to void the warrenty on stuff like this, for the most part. It would be a support nightmare for them to cover modified devices.
Not true, poorly written device drivers can only damage poorly designed hardware.
Hardware should be designed with software failure in mind, and in fact should survive being attacked by software deliberately written for the purpose of damaging the hardware.
Assuming the software is going to play 'nice' is assuming that there will be no bugs, that there never will be a successful exploit and so on.
1) I buy a macbook pro (covered under warranty, etc)
2) I install software that disables the fans
3) I update the firmware to disable the automatic shut-down when overheating (or move it so it only happens at an even higher temperature)
4) I run high-cpu software until the machine crashes
5) I repeatedly do this for months on end
I'm pretty sure that machine will be toast soon enough. Is it fair that I should then take it to Apple and ask for a new machine "because it's under warranty"?
If you update the firmware you're at a different level altogether (above it said 'device drivers', not 'firmware', they're definitely not the same), but still, the hardware hopefully has a failsafe that will shut down the motherboard as soon as you reach a critical temperature over the one where the fans would have normally come on, and past the highest setting for the automated shut-down in software in case of overheating (that's a 'nice' shutdown), presumably that one is one that you can still recover from without any damage.
Designing good hardware is hard, but it definitely can be done and a few ntcs and a crowbar are not going to break the bank.
You make a great point about why passively cooled systems are better though :)
The whole point of buying Apple is that the hardware and software have been developed together, so they work pretty well together. I don't know why you'd bother installing another OS on Apple hardware. There's plenty of other hardware out there that you can play with.
This whole discussion reminds me of a silly electronics engineers joke:
Q: How many programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: It can't be done, it's a hardware problem.
The implication of the joke is that if anything is 'hardware' you are not supposed to be either able to 'fix' it or 'break' it using just software.
Hardware is taken as a 'given', no matter how crappy the software you run on it, no matter how malicious your intent, the hardware is supposed to survive.
If you decided to try all possible pieces of software you could possibly run on your machine by simply enumerating them (yes, that's going to take a while) then you should not have to do a full hardware integrity test after every run.
CPUs are probably the best examples of hardware that will protect itself from abuse. They already have a lot of power management circuitry to help battery life, and they have built-in thermal monitoring that will reduce voltage and clockspeed to prevent overheating. This is even used as a selling point on recent processors: "Turbo mode" means the processor is self-overclocking to within it's specified TDP.
That seems a little naive to me. Why should hardware be made to not fail when used improperly? Wouldn't that drive up the prices on everything? No thanks!
Because someone writing malware could destroy your hardware.
At least like this you have the option to go back to 'factory settings' (ie, a blank start) and you can expect to get your device back to the way it was when you bought it.
How would you like it if a virus could flash your BIOS and render your motherboard unusable? It's happened before, and that's why most motherboards now either have their BIOS chips in sockets (so that the manufacturer can mail you a replacement) or have a back-up BIOS chip that you can switch to only with a jumper.
It's true it's possible. But damage is far more likely, IMO, in other ways. The point is that a blanket ban is not justifiable. If they want to deny warranty, they have to show it was at least reasonably caused by the modification.
The parts I listed in another thread that I thought could be "broken" by software: the radio, flash RAM, and the battery. And the 1st one wouldn't be physically affected, but wouldn't work correctly. Everything else, AFAIK, Apple should honor the warranty on.
The flash RAM and the li-ion battery can actually be physically harmed by incorrectly functioning software!
> The flash RAM and the li-ion battery can actually be physically harmed by incorrectly functioning software!
Long ago, there was a computer that had its databus wired up in such a way that reading from a '0' location in the ROM eventually fried the processor. They saved on a single buffer chip that would have avoided this and the design was 'fixed' in the next release.
Software should not ever be able to 'damage' hardware beyond slightly accelerated wear, such as when ordering a harddrive to repeatedly seek across the whole drive and so on. Tricks like that should not result in stuff burning up or dying, if it does that is just bad design.
The wear on the flash ram is just whatever it would be if you packed that number of writes in to a much longer amount of time and the li-ion battery discharge would simply mean that you get the same number of cycles but over a shorter life-span.
That doesn't count as 'physical harm', after all, then normal use also causes 'physical harm', it just takes longer.
The reason that happened was because they didn't have a 'safe range' on the frequency that drove the CRT, driving it too slow would burn up one of the coils in the high voltage circuitry that drives the coils to do the deflection.
Never monitors have been designed to shut down when presented with an out-of-range synch signal, and digital ones will display a message to that effect.
They actually can be physically harmed by a lot of things - heat being the primary way (in fact, that is the only way the software can damage them), and they will honor the warranty for other forms of damage that involved overheating.
I'm not sure why Apple gets so much hate for this. I can think of at least 3 other companies that do exactly the same thing and have done for years:
- Microsoft - Xbox and Xbox360
- Sony - PS1, PS2, PS3, and PSP
- Nintendo - NES, SNES, GC, Wii, DS
Why should Apple be treated any differently than any game console manufacturer? Every one of those game console manufacturers void your warranty if you mod them. Every one of them restricts which development tools you can use to develop on them, and has very stringent application approval processes.
Why is it that Apple all of a sudden deserves special anti-trust attention? Is it because they developed a game console that also happens to be a phone? Or maybe it's because they developed the first phone that doesn't suck.
I've seen this analogy before and it is completely nonsensical.
If Microsoft and Sony were like Apple, you wouldn't have titles like Call of Duty on both platforms. Everything would have to have been created originally for one console, and one console only. Otherwise it wouldn't have been "originally" created for it.
Is that what we see in the console world? Of course not. Sometimes the console makers compete for exclusives, but they are exclusive because the company writing the game is doing it that way, not because the console makers are forcing them to.
Apple specifically tries to prevent that kind of cross platform thing from happening on the iPhone.
Apps like Mint and Facebook exist across the various mobile platforms (namely Android + iPhone). Apple doesn't seem to ban apps that are cross-platform as long as they're written with native APIs.
Now imagine if you took Call of Duty on PS3, and did a hacky port where you stubbed DirectX code for the PSGL calls, and used some common denominator between PS3's online service and XBox Live. I'd highly doubt Microsoft would let this go to market, given how poorly it'd perform. Now imagine if these ports were all automated by a third party layer.
In fact, I'm curious to see how many successful games out there use something like Unity to allow PS3/XBox/Wii ports without any code changes.
You're arguing a different point. If modifying is allowed, then they cant restrict the parts by voiding the warranty. If modifying isn't allowed, then it isn't allowed regardless of any brand of parts.
Absolutely not, anyone who has actually soldered a modchip to a motherboard knows it can be an extremely damaging process. That is vastly different from replacing software. I've bricked an Xbox by screwing up the soldering back in the days of 28 wire chips, and I've bricked a Linux device I was involved in the design of by wiping the bootloader that was needed. The Xbox got thrown in the trash, by using the right set of tools we saved the device bricked by software by reflashing it. You can always fix software mistakes by going low enough. You can't always fix hardware mistakes.
I've bricked hardware devices by flashing them with a bad ROM BIOS. I've bricked PC motherboards by having a flash fail halfway through. I've overclocked graphics cards by loading custom firmware on them, which caused permanent damage due to overheating.
Software mistakes cannot always be fixed.
I love modding my computers, consoles, smartphones, and various electronic devices, but I do so full well knowing that if I fuck up, it's my fault and not Apple's.
Sure, an iPhone is usually recoverable, but if for some reason it isn't, I take full responsibility and don't expect Apple to provide me with another guinea pig free of charge.
I agree with you. Of course it's not about Apple giving you a new phone if you fuck it up. It's about if something entirely unrelated to what you did fails and warranty is still denied based on the modification (ie headphone jack stops working on your jailbroken iphone).
Modding a console requires physically changing the hardware. I think it's reasonable to void the warranty if there's a good chance the customer accidentally broke it while trying to physically change its function. The situation with the iPhone/iPad is different because it's just a wipe of the software; no physical modding.
And do these software mods also void the warranty? I know you're no longer allowed to use such things as XBox Live (which I think is a legitimate way to prevent cheating).
If you were able to backup the harddrive image, mod it with software, and then replace the harddrive image, you can still bring it in for warranty repairs. How would they know? But if you cut open the case, that is a whole different story.
They have one of those tamper seals over the case screws, so just by opening the case to your Xbox you are voiding your warranty.
The way I understand it is this: Softmodding might not void your warranty, but it might as well, because if your hardware ever breaks and needs repair, you're not going to be able to "put it back the way it was" before taking it into the shop. So, you take it in, they fix your Xbox, boot it, see a hacked dashboard, and say "you modded it so we're going to bill you for the repair."
True -- BUT MS/Sony/Nintendo allow developers to use cross-platform libraries. And better yet, this policy does not bar them from releasing high-quality products, regardless of what Jobs would have you believe.
What an exceptionally well argued point. I particularly like the author's argument, because the only behavior that apple would have to change would be its warranty policy; it wouldn't force apple to tear down it's walled garden, apple just couldn't void your warranty if you chose to leave it.
I think it's reasonable to have Apple to honor its warranty on the hardware if you can restore your jailbroken device to its standard configuration. Unlike running a car with 3rd party components, there are almost no effects on hardware that caused by running 3rd party software. The two exceptions I know about being flash memory and the battery. Software can have a direct effect on these. I would accept a waiver of warranty on these two components for running non-Apple tested jailbroken software.
Oh wait, the baseband has a direct bearing on the functioning of the 3G or mobile telephony hardware. Hmmm. I guess we'd have to waive the hardware warranty on that part too for jailbreaks.
This has been addressed for car parts. If you use aftermarket parts and your car breaks, they can't void the warranty unless they can show that it was reasonably caused by the non-standard part.
For example, if you "chip" your car and then blow a head gasket, they can justifiably argue that this was caused by running the engine at higher power. If the catalytic converter or the suspension breaks, they can't.
So if they can establish a case that the radio broke because the jailbroken software ran it at too high power or whatnot, then they might have a case. If it just fails, on the other hand, I don't think they can.
The catalytic converter is actually a bad example because by chipping your car you could conceivably change the mixture in such a way that the exhaust gas temperatures would go outside their permitted ranges, and most cars don't have a failsafe for that.
To actually prove that the chipped ECU was the cause is still going to be pretty tricky though, but the catalytic converter is for this purpose still very much part of the engine.
The seat upholstery, the window glass, accessories and so on are likely to be unaffected, they are literally along for the ride, but almost every other part in the car, even including the suspension and the chassis would be operating at higher stress levels when you increase the engine power.
If the manufacturer pleads its case well they might be able to make that stick. If they sell the same model with a higher powered engine but all the rest of the drive components identical they're out of luck.
Actually, all modern emissions-compliant cars control lambda closed-loop by automatically adjusting fuel delivery, and will drop power if signals from oxygen sensors are out of the ordinary. That's required by emissions regulations. So, no, it can't. Moreover, due to speed limits, any power increase can only be realized over very short times anyway.
And while in principle you are correct about the suspension, suspension wear is not based on available power but on speed and road conditions. Since my warranty wasn't voided by driving in Boston (which has horrific road conditions compared to the Bay Area) or by speeding, it shouldn't based on increasing power either.
- If I mod a car such that it performs better, but violates emmissions and safety laws, is such a modification legal for street use? The law says no.
Similarly:
- If I mod the baseband firmware in my iPhone such that it lets me use it on other carriers, but isn't approved by the FCC and might cause interference with approved devices, is it legal to use it on the airwaves? The law also says no.
Also, flashing the baseband firmware on a radio could definitely cause permanent, irreversible damage. How can you legitimately expect any hardware vendor to honor a warranty after this?
The FCC approval is based on lab-testing of a specific hardware and firmware configuration. They test it in the lab to make sure it doesn't step on other licensee's frequencies.
Sometimes, just by putting a different antenna and hardware configuration on the same radio, you can cause interference, harmonics, etc, that were not present on a past model. This is why every new model of iPhone/iPad needs FCC approval before it can be sold to the public.
Telling the general public that they can load whatever firmware they want on their radio ignores the fact that these radios have highly complex software algorithms affecting frequency hopping, collision detection, etc. It would be like saying "anyone on our network can modify their Ethernet firmware" and then wondering why someone took down the entire LAN because their custom firmware did a broadcast storm.
I'm not thinking of the radio breaking, but it might well work improperly due to software. This would render a phone unusable. (Can we have a warranty on AT&T?)
In the case of flash RAM or the battery: software can clearly break those.
Nokia wouldn't allow you to flash your 3G baseband firmware. That is what SIM unlocks do for iPhone. Once you've flashed it, you've lost all FCC approval because the FCC approves a specific hardware and baseband firmware combination.
Ok, so this guy really has no clue about antitrust law, so why even write about "How Apple is Breaking The Law With The App Store"?
According to Sherman's Act, restrain of trade is only illegal when it can serve to create or further a monopoly. You and I can agree to never deal with particular Joe Shmoe, but as long as Joe has plenty of other choices in his life it's ok.
The crucial point in defining monopoly is defining "the market". Apple is nowhere close to monopoly in cell phones, so it's not possible no nail them from restrain of trade in e.g. accessories using Sherman's act. Magnuson-Moss act is another story, though (the same act makes illegal for car manufacturer to void warranty if you use alien spare parts in repairing your car).
It gets a lot more interesting if you consider digital download music to be it's own market - a clear near-monopoly and any anti-competitive tactics will serve "to create or further a monopoly". Now would the court decide that "digital music download" is a separate market from "plain old music retailing"? This question is impossible to answer without litigation. Similarly, "application software for mobile phones" may or may not be a separate market from "plain old computer software". Apple is a near-monopoly in the first and a blip on the radar in the second. Another interesting area is "mobile internet access" - Apple is a near-monopoly in that "market" as well.
You are arguing with a strawman. Nothing in the article mentioned the Sherman Act or said that Apple is a monopoly.
If you think that the FTC and DOJ exist solely to enforce that one law, you are incorrect.
Restraint of trade (argument used in the article) is illegal pretty much only under Sherman's act, and even then only in set circumstances. I don't see how this argument can be about anything else other than Sherman's act.
Look at this from this angle: I have an iPhone 3 or 4/iPad. I can't use any of the existing apps in the appstore to take my notes (my notes have a very specific and complex structure). I want to build an app that (tweaks) the OS so that I have the possibility of starting taking notes right from the home screen (with all the structure I require for them), or by vocal commands. I don't want to go from the appstore (I don't want to sell/distribute it) or buy a developer subscription, and I don't have a Mac platform to develop from. I want to use an industry standard (wide use on multiple-markets) and open language (not a commercial one). Can I built my app, on the device I just purchased?
Under this definition, Apple is actually a monopoly (and they're not in the phone market, they're in the smartphone one). They lock me out of every process they take, and I'm their customer (and if a developer, a business customer).
EDIT: As a response to those who claim that the antitrust case should apply to Wii/Xbox/PS/etc (and I'm okay with that, but): iPhone/iPad are computers/devices that enable personal productivity, and it's a different story since different uses are involved.
I was just trying to share my point of view (my opinion) of this whole situation. I'm failing to see why the down vote (maybe it was the radical redefinition of monopoly, but still it's just my opinion).
EDIT: Consider instead of buying it (which involves choosing), that it was gifted to you.
If US consumer law was stronger, these things wouldn't even need to be debated.
In the UK the manufacturer's warranty is a nice bonus, but we have a legal right from the _retailer_ the item was bought from to a repair/replacement/refund.
If the act of you jailbreaking the phone caused it to stop functioning, you'd have no claim.
But if the issue is a hardware issue, and the phone happens to be jailbroken, the retailer would still have their obligations. You haven't damaged the hardware, it's broken, you have a right to a repair.
UK consumer law also dictates that any product you buy should last for a reasonable length of time, which can be up to 6 years. I think it'd be reasonable to expect luxury electronics to last several years.
So the 1 year warranty? Sure, Apple can give you it, but it's in addition to your consumer rights, which it can't change.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that Jailbreaking does remove a lot of protection built into the phone. I am guessing Apple could successfully (and probably legitimately) argue that jailbreaking has to void warranty - because any damage resulting from installing jailbroken apps is not their responsibility. Say a virus targets jailbroken phones and rips into/destroys the hard drive. Is it reasonable to expect to be Apple responsible for replacing these phones under warranty?
If jailbreaking didn't void your warranty would more people do it? I suspect not a huge amount more.
Also; while this is well argued it is essentially wrangling a legal point - this kind of thing ends up getting stuck in court for years being decided.
The one issue I see with this line of reasoning is that Apple might make a convincing argument that with a jailbroken phone, users could somehow disable the hardware protection software that prevents the phone from being damaged when used in excessive heat. I'm not fully up to speed on what other protection mechanisms they have built into the phone (and whether or not you can override them by jailbreaking), but I wonder if that isn't one of the main reasons they would have this clause in there to begin with.
More than just an excuse. Software has been an integral part of heat management in devices for over a decade. Also, the li-ion battery and the flash RAM could be physically damaged by incorrectly functioning software.
A few different ways the DOJ could approach the anti-competitive issues:
1. Section 3.3.1 enforces monopoly in app development tools (GM won't allow parts made using CNC milling, only hand-milled parts)
2. App Store policies enforce monopoly over 175k+ apps/$1 billion+ iPhone App market (can only buy 3rd-party parts for your car at a GM dealership, and nowhere else)
3. Apple approval needed to get on devices (GM has to approve all parts before they go in your car)
4. Apple takes 30% of developer revenues (non-OEM part manufacturers have to pay GM to sell parts for your car)
5. Using a payment mechanism other than iTunes is prohibited - e.g. a free app that you pay for with paypal (can only use GMAC credit card to pay for your car parts)
6. Apple doesn't approve applications that compete with Apple's apps - "duplicate existing functionality" (can't put aftermarket rims on your car)
7. Installation of non-Apple-Approved software voids warranty (installing a 3rd-party part voids entire warranty)
(Many of these claims could, and should, apply equally to game console manufacturers. The homebrew scene just lacks a public profile like Adobe, a public enemy like Steve Jobs, and attorneys.)
Not sure if this is a valid legal heuristic, but as an exercise, imagine what would happen should each of these restrictions be lifted. Would there be many entrants into that market? Would innovation and value creation result? The answer is unequivocally yes.
Why isn't this as simple as: If you don't like Apple's policies, then buy a different phone next time? There are comparable Android-based phones ...
I still don't see a legitimate reason why people want to hang on to their iPhones so badly, in light of this policy. Sure, the App Store has some good apps, but obviously they don't have everything wanted since everyone wants to jailbreak ...
Hint: you won't find the answer in the post. Just some speculation based on (wierd, IMHO) assumption:
This is problematic because if there were no fear of voiding warranty,
undoubtedly many customers would jailbreak their iPhone, There would be
alternate markets for iPhone software, and there would be a truly
competitive marketplace.
Are apps in Cydia all coded in Flash, or Haskel? What does he mean by "truly competitive"?
Is it all because of the warranty clause, really?
You can put mp3 on your iPod from any source without voiding the warranty. Does not hurt ITMS a bit.
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions[3], and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."