Source? Sounds like FUD to me. ________________________________
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: iPhone experience 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
