Apple, unlockers grapple in cyberspace

The good news is that Apple Inc. has a lot of fans.
The news that’s too fresh to characterize as “good” or “bad” is that Apple fans include inspired hackers and mere meddlers who seek to break the tenuous bond between Apple and its exclusive iPhone customer in the United States, AT&T Mobility. The reasons appear to include fun, profit and the pursuit of a sense that they are smarter than Apple CEO Steve Jobs and his cadre of software engineers.
A wave of iPhone unlocking-scale unknown-appears to be sweeping over the U.S. with enough force that Apple has broken its “no comment” stance on the practice.
Thus last week’s warning from Apple that unlocking its device, or meddling with it, could result in “irreparable damage,” may render the device “permanently inoperable,” and could “void the warranty”-all ominous-sounding appeals to stem the proverbial genie’s flight from the bottle.
Jobs clearly recognized the phenomenon when he appeared in Europe two weeks ago to launch the iPhone, referring to Apple and its fanboy-turned-hacker following as a “cat-and-mouse game.” And that game continued last week as iPhone unlockers disputed Apple’s assertions that unlocking could “brick” the device. But the unlockers also suggested that fellow unlockers forego Apple’s next software update-released last week-to give the unlocking “community” time to analyze it and develop a defense, in case Apple should include a software-based “bricking” mechanism to punish those who’d tampered with their devices. The implication: We’ll meet any challenge Apple can throw at us.
The cat-and-mouse game continues.
Perhaps mindful of the eggshell-thin terrain that lies between persuasion and litigation-and the black eye the music industry earned by suing private citizens who’d shared music files-Apple apparently has chosen, for now, to sow seeds of doubt rather than issue threats. After all, the legal status of unlocking offers remains murky. Users may unlock their phones for legitimate use, but the sale of unlocking procedures and unlocked phones appears to be illegal.
Still, given the nearly unique sheen to its brand, Apple must walk a fine line, according to brand expert Alan Siegel, principal at the New York firm of Siegel+Gale.
Siegel, a generally pleased iPhone owner, said that Apple had erred by dropping its iPhone price so soon and, in effect, burning its core constituency.
“That was a big mistake and a slap in the face to a loyal customer base willing to pay a premium price to support Apple’s new product,” said Siegel.
In fairness to Apple, Siegel said, both it and AT&T Mobility had made clear that the device, as sold, was intended only for use on the AT&T network. Warning that other uses of the product, or tampering with it, could void the product warranty is fair and appropriate. Yet Apple must tread carefully on the terrain beyond the friendly reminder.
“It’s often counterproductive to threaten or sue,” Siegel said. “It makes more sense to resolve any problems with your product that lead to this unlocking activity. Improve the product or the network, but don’t go after people. We live in a completely different world (than years past), in an environment where an individual can criticize a company’s products and initiate a dialogue with the company and other consumers. You have to be very careful-these are very sophisticated people buying your products.”