iPhone 1.1.1: malicious intent?
Oct 2, 2007 Brainwaves, Geek, In The News
So, there’s a lot of talk in the technology news corner about the latest iPhone software update from Apple, that upgraded the phone to version 1.1.1. A lot of the comments I’ve read and heard are about how Apple is deliberately attacking hackers and unlockers who’ve opened up their iPhones to use third-party applications (called jailbreaking) and unlocking the SIM lock to use non-AT&T SIM cards.
I posit that there’s a simpler answer, one that’s a smidge more reasonable than that floating about the blogosphere and media.
Granted, it’s not as “sexy” as “Apple attacks hackers” so it won’t make headlines, but I think it makes a hell of a lot more sense.
My understanding is, in general, we’re talking about two distinct parts of the phone: the main operating system software and the modem chip programming. Hackers initially worked out how to open up the operating system to install third-party programs, but that wasn’t enough to open the SIM lock. To do that, one has to reprogram the modem chip to accept non-AT&T SIMs.
I’ve got two hypotheses as to what’s going on to cause so-called “iBricks” (iPhones that have become inoperable, even with the original AT&T SIM):
- Hackers jailbreak iPhone OS X 1.0.2 by altering the installed OS on the phone, and from there unlock it by modifying the code on the modem chip. OS restores of 1.0.2 don’t undo the unlock because they don’t touch the modem chip. Then, Apple releases 1.1.1, which modifies the OS and the way it interacts with the modem chip. The modem no longer replies as expected, and the phone fails to operate. Or…
- Same situation, only the 1.1.1 actually applies a patch (as opposed to completely overwriting the entire firmware) to the modem chip as well. The patch itself expects the existing software to be in a certain spot, where it may no longer be, and causes the update to break the modem chip. Phone again fails to update.
Either of these are likely, and seem to be more reasonable than malicious intent on Apple’s part. Damaging a phone and preventing it from “rejoining the fold,” as it were, and returning to the AT&T network doesn’t seem like a very smart move. Apple’s better off with a repaired phone than a dead phone.
However, in either of the above cases, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for Apple to refuse to service it. “Our update expects the phone to be in a certain state. If it’s not, we can’t be held responsible for the consequences.” Apple gave fair warning last Monday before 1.1.1 dropped that phones were likely to be damaged if the update was installed on unlocked units. If someone tells you, “I’m offering an update to your device this week, but if you’ve modified it, it will likely break it,” and you tried to update it anyway, I’ve got little sympathy for you.
