<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;bricking&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:12:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Motorola Does Openness Wrong; Bricks Your Droid X If You Tamper</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100715/10300810229.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100715/10300810229.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Part of the key selling point of the whole concept of Android-based smartphones was that they were open to tinkering.  Apparently, Motorola thinks somewhat differently about that.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=paperbag">paperbag</a> was the first of a whole bunch of you to point to variations on the story that Motorola has put a thing called "eFuse" on the Droid X which will <a href="http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/07/14/droid-x-actually-self-destructs-if-you-try-to-mod-it/" target="_blank">effectively brick your phone</a> if you try to mess with the software.
<br /><br />
If you look around, a <i>lot</i> of people who said they would originally buy a Droid X are saying they won't do it now, just on principle.  Bricking a phone that someone bought, just because they want to change the software themselves is pretty abhorrent.  Motorola's <a href="http://community.developer.motorola.com/t5/MOTODEV-Blog/Custom-ROMs-and-Motorola-s-Android-Handsets/bc-p/4290#M432title=Custom" target="_blank">response to the concerns</a> isn't winning over many people either.  They flat-out say that if you don't like it, you should buy another phone:
<blockquote><i>
We understand there is a community of developers interested in going beyond Android application development and experimenting with Android system development and re-flashing phones.  <b>For these developers, we highly recommend obtaining either a Google ADP1 developer phone or a Nexus One</b>, both of which are intended for these purposes.  At this time, Motorola Android-based handsets are intended for use by consumers and Android application developers, and we have currently chosen not to go into the business of providing fully unlocked developer phones.
<br /><br />
The use of open source software, such as the Linux kernel or the Android platform, in a consumer device does not require the handset running such software to be open for re-flashing.  We comply with the licenses, including GPLv2, for each of the open source packages in our handsets.  We post appropriate notices as part of the legal information on the handset and post source code, where required, at http://opensource.motorola.com.  Securing the software on our handsets, thereby preventing a non-Motorola ROM image from being loaded, has been our common practice for many years.  This practice is driven by a number of different business factors.  When we do deviate from our normal practice, such as we did with the DROID, there is a specific business reason for doing so.  We understand this can result in some confusion, and apologize for any frustration. 
</i></blockquote>
I think they're missing the point.  The fact is most consumers won't tinker with the underlying software of their phone, but if they do want to, they should be allowed to do so without having Motorola destroy the device.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100715/10300810229.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100715/10300810229.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100715/10300810229.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-open</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100715/10300810229</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Oct 2008 20:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Lets iPhone Antitrust Trial Move Forward</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/1516372480.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/1516372480.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071008/113241.shtml">antitrust lawsuit</a> filed against Apple for sending an update that disabled, or "bricked," the iPhones of people who had changed the firmware to accept outside programs.  While Apple tried to push for a dismissal of the lawsuit, a judge <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/135951/2008/10/antitrust.html" target="_new">has denied the motion to dismiss</a> and will let the case carry on.  While a full-on antitrust finding seems unlikely, there are elements of the case that may get Apple into trouble down the road -- and it all comes back to Apple's Achilles' heel: its desire to control absolutely everything, even after you've bought it.  Depending on how this case works out, Apple may discover that it (legally) needs to learn to loosen the strings a bit.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/1516372480.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/1516372480.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/1516372480.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-such-a-good-day-at-apple</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081007/1516372480</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>