They aren't covering issues for legitimately failed upgrades? Wow. Even Nikon took my $1300 camera for repair for free when I bricked it during a firmware upgrade. No accident insurance. Just good customer service for something that can inevitably go wrong. Where did you find out about this refusal on Apple and AT&T's part?
-- ME2 On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Sam Cayze <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Another reason for 3rd Party coverage:* > Apple and At&t are NOT offering replacements to users that have bricked > iPhones during an upgrade to say OS 3.1. > (Ridiculous, I know, don't get me started). > > > > Sam > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 10:36 AM > > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: iPhone experience > > So let me pose an iPhone question. > > Compared to a BB, how does it physically hold up. I have guys here that > just beat the living hell out of their phones and of course they are also > the ones who want iPhones and the iPhone just looks too delicate for day to > day usage by a lot of folks. > > The BB can take a hell of a beating and short of the occasional track ball > replacement, I rarely have to replace them unless someone has dropped it in > a toilet or some other catastrophic issue. > > But that glass front on the iPhone scares me. > > So how many of you that have deployed the iPhone have had to deal with > physical damage? > > > > *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 8:25 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: iPhone experience > > > > OK, so my reply to you: > > > > I didnt say to pin it on anything. I said it can be done; which is true. > > > > I didnt say to do it or not to; only that its possible. I really dont know > how I could have written a more neutral statement about it originally or in > my reply to you. I dont think its fair to say I'm being disingenuous > because of my intentional neutrality. > > > > Touché on the open source bits of router firmware, which opens the door > wide for any modifications. My mistake for neglecting to take that into > consideration. But, these forums have not been quick to uphold Microsoft's > licensing when it comes to phone firmware/software customization. Theft, > sure. Customization? No. > > > > Jailbreaking is not theft. Your comparison to BitTorrent use was disingenuous > - for real. > -- > ME2 > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't see what was "disingenuous" about my reply to Bob. > > Not your reply to Bob, you reply to me. Which I read along the > lines of, "Oh, I didn't mean you should actually *do* what I was > talking about, I was just saying it's theoretically possible." You > want to argue you don't think it's a big deal, or you interpret the > license different, or something like that (which you did, now), okay. > I might not agree, but I can respect that. But playing language > lawyer to try and dodge ownership of what you say -- that is bogus. I > have no respect for that. Maybe that's not what you intended to mean, > in which case, I apologize. > > > > Its funny, because whenever someone wants to get better access control > with > > a home router, there are plenty of recommendations for DD-WRT. > > The license agreements with those routers don't prohibit third-party > firmware. Indeed, in many cases, they're specifically required to > release the source under the GPL. Some even advertise their > compatibility with third-party firmware as a feature, e.g., WRT54GL. > > Apple/AT&T forbids it in their licenses, release updates to counter > it, and threatens legal action. > > See the difference? > > > Apple is not special. > > No, they're not. And these forums are usually pretty quick to > uphold Microsoft's licenses. So why not Apple's? > > -- Ben > > >
