Heh, When I read the headline over at Engadget that Apple was giving $100 back to the early adopters, I was sure that the Apple haters would be silenced for a little while. Obviously that was not the case. I find it amazing that people are so jaded or outright hateful that they have to search high and low for ways to criticize Apple over this. Apple was under no obligation to credit anyone anything, yet they did. I can see nothing negative about it.

To C. Fishman: Actually, Jobs reportedly mentioned the 10 day price protection at some point after announcing the price drop, and also that it has to be claimed within 14 days of the announced price change--which is completely separate from the $100 rebate. That point was reported on most of the tech sites I've seen, and I think even in Fahrad's original column on the price drop. Buyers that bought their iPhone by credit card should also check into what price protection benefits come with their card. Some issuing banks may offer a longer price protection period compared to Apple.

>> So while it isn't clear they set out to intentionally break unlocked phones -- instead, they could merely have not gone out of their way to preserve unlocked phones -- they did know that the phones would break and did decide, too, that they wouldn't help those affected. That's not hardball? <<

Farhad, I think your confusing your legal right to unlock a phone without the fear of prosecution under the DMCA legislation for a nonexistent right to violate the terms of a warranty. The DMCA legislation would have given the mobile network operators and handset manufactures the right to take legal action against 3rd party phone unlockers and their end-user customers, except for the exemption mentioned in your article. That legal exception does not, on the other hand, require phone manufactures or the networks that carry them to honor the original warranty on those modified devices. They are two separate concepts, and I don't think you're doing your readers a service by conflating them.

As for phone unlocking and the iPhone, this has absolutely nothing to do with Apple being an evil corporation...

Far from it, from most of the media sources across the web, there is little evidence that the iPhone 1.1.1 update is bricking unlocked or cracked devices at a higher rate than the general public. Actually, that's not entirely true, one of the unlocking hacks does seem to be faring pretty poorly, but that hack seems to work in a way as to guarantee future problems. What is apparent is that the Apple update is restoring the firmware to a naive state, which they've probably decided to do so as to not brick even more of the cracked / hacked / hot-rodded phones. It seems unfortunate that some phones, modified or not, are being bricked by the update, but a certain amount of that happens for almost any firmware update. Moreover, there are anecdotal reports of Apple and ATT replacing or restoring unlocked phones when the owner has it activated with ATT, and the original SIM...So it really doesn't look like they have set out to screw their (wayward) customers.

With regards to mobile phone unlocking...there are 1st party solutions and there are 3rd party solutions--they are not the same. It's a basic assumption that all GSM phones can be unlocked, though not necessarily by a code. And if the iPhone is going to be sold in the EU it MUST be unlockable (a legal requirement). That is to say, Apple and possibly ATT have a 1st party unlock solution for the iPhone, and applying it can not void the warranty on the phone. But that's not entirely relevant to the problem at hand, what we're talking about are 3rd party solutions. Those are necessarily caveat emptor. The best 3rd party solutions are essentially identical to that of the manufacturer, the worst lead to brickage (or are overtly illegal). All unlocking solutions that involve modifying the phone's firmware will void your warranty. That's as true on an iPhone as a Nokia or Samsung. Generally speaking, as someone who's made money unlocking and flashing phones, the person who's applied the firmware mod is responsible for the phone's operation from that point forward, not the manufacturer. What might be different, is that historically most phones never need a firmware update, so most unlocked phones can spend their useful life without any problem. The same is true with the iPhone, the 1.1.1 firmware update can be rejected by the end user. That's the trade off between having supported and unsupported functionality, and every consumer has to decide what balance is appropriate for them. As an aside, there is also anecdotal evidence that one of the iPhone unlocking solutions changes the IMEI number--that is illegal and not protected under the DMCA exemption--and appears to be brick fodder. Again caveat emptor.

So...what should Apple have done? Fahrad seems to think they should have crafted their firmware such that it didn't interfere with the 3rd party firmware patches. I think that's pretty unrealistic thinking. In the end, they took the safe path, a complete firmware restore, warned customers in advance, and then tightened the security around the firmware. Personally, I think that was the proper way for them to do things. Moreover, if you look at how Sony and Nintendo deal with firmware cracks on their PSP and DS (light), respectively, you'll realize that Apple hasn't headed off in uncharted, draconian waters.

At first I was disappointed that WayLay was apparently being dropped for ... this comic, but I see that Carol Lay has only been shifted to Friday. Just the same, it would have been nice for the editors to add a note either on the front page, or in the editor's intro to Cansas O'Flaherty.

Unfortunately, if Salon's usual use of Friday for short-term comic series or those on their way out, we'll probably all have to get used to looking elsewhere for our Carol Lay fix. Bummer...

...Secret Agent is almost like dropping into the middle of a long-running soap opera. One that has no apparent point or drive, but long-running none the less. Obviously Salon vetted the first run (right??), so this will go somewhere, sometime, somehow.

Fitting tribute to Evel Knievel. I, and most of my friends, spent the same days as you flying off of unstable plywood ramps over various and sundry building supplies. The only things we managed to break were bike parts, a few noses, and a couple of fingers, well those and our dreams of being a worthy successor to Evel. When I heard the news, I touched wood and then looked over some of the scars acquired 30 years ago. While those scars are all but invisible, the memories will last forever.

I admit that I did read this week's installment, even if I did read the more entertaining letters first.

After six or seven weeks, I still feel absolutely no emotional involvement in this strip, no empathy with Kansas, and certainly no animus towards any other character. They, like me looking at them, are emotional blanks.

That seems to be the problem. Every other cartoon strip I read, or feel like reading, offers some sort of emotional in to the characters. Sometimes they are obvious, like Tom Tomorrow's snarky penguin, or Keith Knight's every-man, but usually it's just the fleeting glimpses of myself that spark my interest in what's going on. Even the occasionally banal cartoon penned by Carol Lay engenders some emotional connection, even if it's looking forward to something different next week.

Unfortunately Kansas O'Flaherty offers nothing of the sort. The strip is a sterile, frozen wasteland where no emotion can attach itself. Moreover, week after week, it's the same carbon copy of the tedium that was last weeks strip. Snooze!

Kansas O'Flaherty--hate her? Nahh, I close my eyes and she's gone.

Welcome to Salon Pabo Päster. I hope your forthcoming essays and articles strive to not only teach us the numerical basis behind environmentally unsustainable practices but also show us how to overcome the emotional reasons behind them.

Judging from your debut, you have your work cut out for you.

In the case of bottled water, writing about how many tons of petroleum are needed to make the bottles carrying the product and how much more fuel is needed to get the water from source to destination is at best a phyrric exercise. Change a few nouns and a couple of verbs, and the topic isn't bottled water, it's the fleece sweaters we wear in the winter instead of wool, or the CDs and DVDs we buy instead of downloading, or the cokes we drink instead of making coolaid, or the restaurants we eat out at instead of cooking at home, or ... et cetera, cetera, ad nausium. It's an argument for the believers that lacks any emotional resonance. Any of these behavior patters certainly have an environmental consequence, but they also have an emotional reason behind them. Reciting just the bad, bad, bad numbers isn't going to make those underlying rationales disappear.

Most likely, you've already lost some readers who routinely buy bottled water--who wants to be made to feel guilty for something they feel is essential. But I'm sure you'll have plenty of opportunities to win them back.

Good luck, I hope you have a long career at Salon, and I really hope you take a different tack on your next column.

BTW, if this is truly "Ask" Pablo, you should print at least the name of the person writing the question. That makes it looks like you're actually answering a question and not pontificating to the unwashed masses.