After the introduction of the new popular iphone, many hackers attempted to break into its internal wiring to add their own functions. This was in violation with the sale agreement.
Subsequent software upgrades by Apple rendered such hacked phones useless, even though they phone was just purchased for several hundred dollars and committment to a plan. The owners are very upset. They feel the phones should've had an 'open' architecture to allow personal modifications or 3rd party software. They don't think they should lose their investment as a result of their unauthorized tinkering.
While I do generally (but not always) support 'open' architecture, in this particular case I have no sympathy for the phone hackers:
The terms were clear when they bought the phone, you hack it, you lose it. Nobody forced anyone to wait in long lines and spend hundreds of dollars for the phone. Anyone spending that kind of money for a phone should be very familar in advance as to what the phone could do and not do before laying out that kind of money. If the phone won't meet your needs don't buy it. (There are plenty of very nice phones available for FREE).
The hackers thought they could outsmart the company and they lost. Indeed, many people with that kind of smart-alec attitude often do illegal hacking or mischief that is selfish and wrong, or actually illegal. I've known many of those kinds of people and I am suspicious of their motives.
As said, I generally support open architectures. But the best way to achieve that is through the legitimate marketplace, not underground means. That is, if the someone offers a restricted product, DON'T BUY IT! But all the hacker techies who couldn't wait to get their mitts on the newest toy only encourage more of close architectures.