iBrick/iPhone Controversy: Some Observations

It's been nearly three months since the roll out of the overpriced Apple iPhone and a lot of things have happened since then. When the phone was made available for sale, people waited in lines for hours to spend hundreds of dollars on these phones, and the level of hype was nearly unparalleled.

Along with the iPhone, customers had to sign a two-year deal with AT&T in order to activate it. There was no small amount of grumbling on this point.

Then someone discovered a way to get around the Apple/AT&T alliance and altered their iPhone so that it could be used on other networks, such as Sprint. This is referred to as "unlocking the iPhone." Tens of thousands of iPhone owners followed suit, and the customer revolt was on. Third-party applications began appearing on the unlocked iPhones as the owners began installing software that Apple didn't approve of, and that a locked iPhone would prevent from being installed in the first place.

Apple fired back and released an update (Version 1.1.1) which disabled all altered iPhones that downloaded the update and turned the iPhones in question into "iBricks" which is a nickname for a disabled iPhone.

Within a week, hackers had figured out how to reverse Upgrade 1.1.1 and re-unlock the iPhones.

Some observations: I am of the opinion that Apple users and Apple Inc. think that they're smarter than one another. This point is playing out before our very eyes.

Think about it: Apple worked for years on the iPhone project, and then released it. iPhone owners figured out how to unlock the iPhone so it works on other networks and can use third-party software; Apple engineers figured out how to shut the altered iPhones down for their owners violating their user agreements (under the guise of improving stability of the iPhone and to offer more features), and hackers rolled back Upgrade 1.1.1 to re-enable their altered iPhones. The level of sheer brainpower being deployed by both sides is simply amazing to behold.

While the chess match taking place between iPhone owners and engineers at Apple is fascinating to watch, a lot of questions have been raised by this controversy.

Questions such as:

• Does Apple have a right to pick the cell phone network for the person who's spending hundreds of dollars buying the iPhone?
  
  
• Do iPhone users have the right to violate an agreement that they agree to simply by opening the box? And does Apple have the right to enforce an agreement that doesn't require the signature of the owner on a contract at the time of purchase?
  
  
• Does Apple have the right to disable the private property of their customers? Once money changes hands, an iPhone becomes a person's property. Doesn't it? My experience in retail tells me "yes it does."
  
  
• What do iPhone users end up with if they sign a two-year agreement with AT&T and then decide to unlock their iPhone? Monthly payments for 24 months, whether or not they're using the network. I know of one person who's in this very situation. They are now graced with two cell phone bills a month, and an iPhone that is no longer operational. I've used the term "idiot" in conversations with him when he moans about paying for nothing.

I'm officially neutral on this entire issue, but will watch the developments in the coming months with great interest.