Apple's iBrick Episode Should Be A Corporate Branding Disaster

It seems that it's possible to downgrade a bricked iPhone and get it back into its pre-bricked state, complete with third-party apps and everything. But really. Is this whole cat-and-mouse game really necessary? The geeks, the early adopters, the people who make incredibly enthusiastic videos and post them prominently on nytimes.com – is it really necessary to piss them all off like this? It might be true, as Jack Schofield says, that there are no user groups for Maytags and that Steve Jobs wants his products to be just that simple. But the worst that happens if you fiddle around with your Maytag is that you break it yourself: Maytag themselves aren't going to try their very best to break it for you if they find out.

Steve Waldman makes an excellent point:

Suppose, accurately, that I am a small software developer. Suppose I write a shareware application that includes a click-through license that states, ordinarily enough, that if you wish to use my application for longer than a 15-day trial, you must pay me. Suppose, ordinarily enough, my application periodically checks for updates, notifying users and offering to install the updates when they become available.
Now suppose that in the click-through installation process, I include a warning, in bold text even, that says "Warning: If you've been using this application for longer than the 15-day trial period and have not entered a license key, installing this update may cause your hard drive to be erased!" And, suppose the update does just that.
I would be in jail. Not in a month, or a week, but yesterday.

One of the weird things about the whole iBrick fiasco is that Apple has historically been quite good at turning a blind eye to the kind of things that the most enthusiastic and sophisticated parts of its customer base get up to. Its latest strategy seems to have lots of downside and negligible upside, so why are they doing it?

Apple is great at mocking Microsoft for selling crippleware: if you buy Windows Vista, there's a good chance you'll end up buying one of the cheaper versions which has been deliberately crippled by Redmond. But now Apple is going down the same road, and deliberately crippling the palmtop computers that it has sold well over a million of in the past few months.

Lord knows I don't always agree with Fred Wilson on matters iPhone-related. But he's right about this. The 1.1.1 update might have been great news from a billing point of view for those of us who aren't at the bleeding edge of technology. But from a corporate-branding perspective, it's a disaster – or at least it should be.

But here's the thing: Jack Flack says that this kind of anti-consumer behavior on Apple's part "never seems to dent Apple's groovy reputation, at least with anyone other than the truest of geeks". I'm half convinced. Thirty seconds playing with Google Maps on my iPhone convinced a technophobic English friend of mine this evening that he simply had to have one as soon as possible. Apple's design nous has always been its strongest selling point, the iPhone's user interface is its design, and so it makes sense for Apple to want to have complete control over that user interface.

But on the other hand, Apple has never been quite this unabashedly vindictive and vicious in the past. Maybe it's taking hints from AT&T.

Comments

[Murphy-Mac:]

It's a little more complicated when you partner with a company like AT&T on a product like the iPhone. How many people are we talking about anyway? The vast majority of iphone users are delighted with it right out of the box. They're more interested in getting a pink one than hacking it. This is far from the "disaster" your headline hopes for. You're talking about a handful of users, big deal. Nobody cares.

2007 Oct 01 09:12 AM

[iNeal:]

Apple has an obligation to AT&T, who has a contract to be the exclusive carrier. Stealing from a big, mean company is still stealing. Hacker Worship is misguided.

2007 Oct 01 10:14 AM

[artman1033:]

Here's a different analogy: You set up your Mustang to run nitrous oxide (brand name NOS) to increase speed. The engine blows up. Should Ford give you a new engine?
Or, you run used restaurant frying oil in your Mercedes. The injectors get plugged. Should Karl Benz and his boys repair your car for free?
Aapl has an agreement with AT&T. AT&T doesn't want T-mobile or VOIP. Aapl has to keep the iphone clean. I'm sure the number of widgets available will increase. The functionality of the iphone will be improved often through downloads. All will be well for the aapl fanboys.

2007 Oct 01 10:06 AM

[gc.alpha:]

Did you take the short bus to school?
Wake up - Maytags do break down - all by themselves.
Software updates aren't anti-consumer, they're anti-hacker.
Steve Wadman is equally confused, and couldn't draw a parallel if he had a ruler.

2007 Oct 01 10:21 AM

[Dan Poarch:]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of branding here, compounded by a misunderstanding of the type of brand that Apple is. No time to get into it other than to say that there's nothing here that delivers on the headline.

2007 Oct 01 11:02 AM

[Puggsly:]

This is crazy. Lets start with some facts!

1. The iPhone does not allow for running of third party software.
2. To get third party software running hackers had to exploit a security hole.
3. APPLE IS REQUIRED TO PATCH SECURITY HOLES!!!
4. We do not yet know if Apple intentionally bricked any phones, only that the SECURITY firmware update caused phones to fail.

What is apple's responsibility in this case? If I modify my firmware, on my cell phone, PDA, MP3 player, or game console and a future firmware update is not compatible with those changes such that the unit no longer works do you really think the manufactures are going to re-flash my system? Do you think they are going to make sure that their update works with my modification?

The only reason people are talking about this is because so many people did it. The moral of the story here is that you should backup your firmware before you mod it, and/or you should not update your firmware after you have modified it.

2007 Oct 01 12:11 PM

[s:]

Yes, it should be a complete corporate disaster that Apple should want to maintain such tight quality control on what could be its most important product launch this decade. Are you crazy? I applaud Apple for taking a firm stance to say "hey, enjoy your new iphones, but if you want to screw with the config control then don't come crying to us if it stops working." The real corporate disaster would occur if Apple took no stance at all and allowed this type of ativity to continue until it got to the point where the company no longer had configuration control on a product that was just launched in June. A profuct that still has bugs and needs fixes. Fixes that must come via software updates. And new features that must come through software updates. Software updates that can only be effective if Apple maintains some form of control over the configuration of the iphone. I agree that at some point the iphone will be a stable enough product that Apple would be stupid not to open it up for official third party app development. But that time is not 3 months into product launch. Come on, get real. I applaud Steve Jobs' efforts on this one. QUALITY CONTROL.

2007 Oct 01 12:39 PM

[HallRainwater:]

What is so convoluted with this issue and story is that Apple didn't bust anybodies phone. If one has installed unauthorized 3rd party app's they disappear upon updating the phone. If one has hacked the phone's system software to run on another network and they are niave enough to install an Apple update the hack breaks Apple's system software. The phone can be restored by installing the original operating system and then either hacked or updated. To be bricked means to be rendered permenantly inoperable.

There is no evidence that Apple is doing anything other than offering improved functionality to the iPhone via a update. Unfortunatly the existing hacks are not compatible with the update. A situation I'm sure will be soon resolved by the hackers.

In my opinion this is just an eager press looking for an angle to poke holes in someones success. My daughters iPhone had to be restored and lost functionality. It has brought about important conversation about rights and responsibilities. No complaints there.

2007 Oct 01 12:45 PM

[Jacques LeS...:]

The analogy from Steve Waldman actually doesn't apply at all. In the example he gave the shareware app NEVER stated that the you had to pay the fee in order to continue using your computer. Apple CLEARLY stated that you had to use AT&T to use the iPhone.

That's all there is to it. Almost none of the iPhone users hacked their phones, this is only a story online, and even amongst the people who care this story will blow over in a few days.

NOBODY cares that hacked phones don't work anymore. I, for example, actually think it's hilarious.

2007 Oct 01 12:48 PM

[gman:]

All the comments so far are hypocritical to the welfare and future of the iphone. It does hurt the branding of Apple and the iPhone if Apple deliberately seeks to lock out the third party apps/uses (see Ringtones here, not just unlocking the phone for use on T-Mobile). The unbelievable brilliance of the apple developer community took off when the iPhone was released. They've come up with ways to enhance the iphone in ways Apple could never have dreamed. Why? The network, baby. the Internets. The pure manpower and sharing of information that comes from disseminating and sharing information on the iPhone, hacks exploits quirks tips unknowns and all. Sure, Apple and AT&T can't be happy about unlocked phones, but what percentage of actual users are gonna do it? I doubt a very low percentage - the general populace is not gonna care, as Murphy states. Being a geek, I know how but I don't need to, so I'm not gonna do it. So why attack and shut down the few that are actively exploring and expanding the use of the phone. Why attack the breed of users (lets say less than 5-10% of all users - being very generous) that are promoting the iPhone platform by exploring and hacking to discover all that it can do? That it is the point of Felix's branding message. Leave these geeks well enough alone and Apple will benefit from their combined brainpower way more than the few dollars lost to unlocked phones and ringtone sales. It's a short sighted gain that pays little attention to the history of geeks/hackers that have made a platform or industry standard survive and grow beyond the original plans/intent of the company behind it. Apple would do far better to turn a blind eye to these expansions/exploits than actively play a doomed cat/mouse war that helps no one, not the active hacker community, and certainly not the average user.

2007 Oct 01 12:53 PM

[Willy-jo:]

There actually is precedent here. When Apple first introduced QuickTime Pro, the nag movie (Get QuickTime Pro) used to pop up every time a 3rd party QT app was launched (unless of curse the developer licensed QT Pro- which very few did). Apple ultimately backed off that strategy (the nag movie now only appears when Apple apps are launched), but it took months, and QT has never been the same. Tons of developers fled the platform to Windows, and never came back. Let's hope they figure it out sooner this time...

2007 Oct 01 01:05 PM

[Al:]

Everyone knew when they bought the iPhone that it was a closed system on AT&T only. Why are you upset now?

Read the end user agreement you signed on the iPhone. Hacking your iPhone, in effect, breaks the contract between the user and Apple and/or AT&T. As a result, the hacked iPhone user had no right to download or install the offending update.

Apple did not end the working agreement, the iPhone hacker did. The iPhone hacker is at fault, not Apple, or AT&T for that matter. Apple is completely blameless. No hack, no problem.

2007 Oct 01 01:13 PM

[Steph:]

This much is clear: this is caused by Apple's alliance with AT&T rather then their own corporate DNA. Just look at the hacker activity on the AppleTV, Apple couldn't care less. A better analogy is how M$ is dealing with people who use a moded XBox on XBox live. If they detect a ROM-modifying chip they simply ban you from the service. Installing a mod also voids your warranty. Did anyone ever complain about this (except those who always seem to want something for nothing)? Cry babies the lot of them. If you want an iPhone that works just like you want it to why not inventing your own instead of ripping other's creativity?

2007 Oct 01 02:08 PM

[Steph:]

This much is clear: this is caused by Apple's alliance with AT&T rather then their own corporate DNA. Just look at the hacker activity on the AppleTV, Apple couldn't care less. A better analogy is how M$ is dealing with people who use a moded XBox on XBox live. If they detect a ROM-modifying chip they simply ban you from the service. Installing a mod also voids your warranty. Did anyone ever complain about this (except those who always seem to want something for nothing)? Cry babies the lot of them. If you want an iPhone that works just like you want it to why not inventing your own instead of ripping other's creativity?

2007 Oct 01 02:08 PM

[User 110151:]

If you screw with your iPhone beyond what Apple allows, you deserve whatever you get! They have legitimate reasons for doing what they are doing. And, this only affects a tiny hacker (whiner!) community, not the much larger consumer community who are, for the most part, delighted with their iPhones.

2007 Oct 01 03:39 PM

[mike hough:]

I won't add to the above critique of your hypothesis except to point out that Apple closed today at a new closing high of $156.33.

The stock is on fire at the moment and and I would recommend that you devote your energy to buying the stock rather than writing such trivial nonsense.

If you don't have the stomach (or cash) for that take a walk to your nearest Apple store and count the number of people who walk out with an iPhone(s).

PS. I know a man, who knows a man, who does not like the Nintendo Wii but I would not build an 'article' on it.

2007 Oct 01 04:26 PM

[Murphy-Mac:]

Wow. Looks like your article wasn't received very well Felix. How do you feel about that? Do you think the story was somewhat irrelevant?

2007 Oct 01 04:39 PM

[User 110166:]

Tech writers are truly clueless what real world customers want - a dependable and easy to use appliance, like iPhone. It takes less than 5 mins and no instruction manual to use an iPhone by pretty much anyone. Most of these people couldn't care less about unlocking their iPhone.
So, who'd be responsible for a lawsuit arising from an unlocked iPhone's failure to make a 911 call? With a locked iPhone, there's no doubt!

2007 Oct 01 04:52 PM

[johnnyvn:]

Sorry, Felix. I think you've hit a low point by calling this move a corporate branding disaster. HUH? Apple sells product. Consumer hacks product to make it do something it is CLEARLY not intended to do. Product as sold continues to work perfectly as advertised on host network. Hacked product no longer works as it was never intended to. And you think this should be a branding disaster for Apple?

Felix, you're trying WAY too hard to make a name for yourself as a writer. Perhaps you'd be better off working for the Enquirer?

2007 Oct 01 06:46 PM

[Arturo:]

Suppose Apple had not said a word about their upgrade causing hacked iphones not to work & just released it as any other normal software upgrade. Would there still be all of this screaming? For sure their would! And suppose Apple replied "hey, what are we to do, make sure our software operates properly with hacked phones before releasing it?" It seems to me they'd be quite justified in doing just that. But they didn't, instead the issued the warning.

I'd like an unlocked phone just as much as the next guy. I switched to Verizon from AT&T a couple of years ago because I was unhappy with the service. However, at the time I also bought a very nice Palm Tungsten that has calling capabilities, but it's also locked and Verizon won't allow me to use it unless I purchase a package for all sorts of "features" that I don't want or need. The point being that all of these companies make what to most of us seem like unreasonable rules, but in the meanwhile provide us with a relatively cheap service that has rapidly become indispensable.

Apple developed their phone & while I don't use, need or even desire its capabilities I do admire the technology & skill that went into its development. I think that they have the right to call the shots. Is anyone forcing this down our throats? If it pisses you off that you can't have it do things the way you'd like, the solution is simple: Don't buy the damn thing.

2007 Oct 02 01:07 PM

[Gautier Gator:]

APPLE 16 FELIX 1
MAKE THAT APPLE 17 INCLUDING MY VOTE

2007 Oct 02 10:35 PM

[Jon T:]

Make that: APPLE 18 FELIX 0

There is whinging whining section of the community that doesn't get it. They think the importance of the iPhone is just for them.

Well it isn't, it is for the people who took the risk: Apple and AT&T. They and they alone are due all the rewards for taking that monumental risk.
Later, by all means make it an open OS X platform. But don't let's risk having iPhone fail because of the selfishness and greed of third party hackers.

2007 Oct 03 03:09 AM