Slashdot Mirror
iPhone Freed From AT&T, Twice
A very large number of readers sent in stories about one or the other of the two new claims to have unlocked the iPhone for use on other GSM carriers. A New Jersey teenager, George Hotz, posted instructions for unlocking the iPhone using a soldering gun and a lot of patience. This is from coverage in a local NJ paper: "If someone handed him an iPhone new out of the box, he could modify it in 'about an hour,' he said. A person following his directions might take 'a good 12 hours,' the teen estimated." Hotz has put up a YouTube video substantiating his claim, and is conducting an eBay auction for one of his two hacked phones. The other hack is by a commercial outfit called iPhoneSIMfree.com, whose claim Engadget has verified. The company will be selling licenses to the hack, minimum quantity 500, at a price not yet announced. These hacks are much bigger news for those outside America. Expect to see an industry spring up to meet European (and Asian?) demand for freed iPhones.
AT&T might have a basis for a lawsuit, since it has a contract with Apple for exclusivity. For users with modified iPhones, I speculate the only negative externality will be a voided warranty.
When there are good projects like the Neo that are on their way?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
There's nothing to stop you unlocking any other phone (in Europe anyway), so I doubt the iPhone will be any different. If anything, if Apple tries to prevent it, I could see the European Commission stepping in.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
Bah, It's not like he made it's battery replaceable.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Given that activation of that contract doesn't occur at the time of sale, but upon activation later. Not much.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
My blog
Unlocking a phone isn't illegal. (nor should it be)
Apple doesn't lose out of this, so I can't see them rushing to redesign the hardware or software.
The only loser it AT&T. And one can easily argue that if the provided a good connection product, at a competitive price and backed it up with quality service they'd have nothing to worry about.
But, of course, the only reason for all service providers all over the globe to use lock-ins is because the last thing any phone company offers is any of the above.
So, yeah, let's hear those world's smallest violins.
Apple and AT&T have undoubtably already discussed what they would do if this happened, as it undoubtably would, Apple will probably have to pay a fine to AT&T as per contract, or attempt to fix the issue. Most likely though neither side will care much as the majority of users will simply switch to AT&T rather than trying to install an unlocking utility, as this is Apple's whole mantra and reason people buy Apple products, they would much rather pay for convienence and an easy to use device than having to hack, adjust, and tweak it.
I really hope they don't go after that kid. We need more smart people like him around.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
You still have to go through the activation process. There are tons of methods to bypass it though. Those thinking it's just to unlock the iPhone and get worry free should be aware. If you have a non-ATT iPhone, You'll still need to re-activate it after every software update from Apple. That's because iTunes checks your phone for consistency and hacked phones don't pass this test. iTunes will demand a full restoration of the hacked iPhone that creates the need for re-activation. It's not that difficult to crack the activation process, but if you are not tech savvy you may get into trouble. After every software update, Apple may change things in iPhone's OS which includes the activation process. So all activation hacks may stop working overnight. Of course the iPhone hack community will eventually modify the hacks so they adapt to the changes, but keeping track of all of that might be hard for the technological challenged.
how the hell do you license a hack? That's like selling someone the way to snap their fingers.
I make these: http://beatseqr.com
Very true, but I fear the government wants less smart people around.
Personally, I don't even care about the iPhone until it has GPS. As much as I hate the unresponsive and convoluted interface interface, the clumsy buttons, and the general ugliness of my iPaq, having GPS-enabled google maps in my pocket is now an absolutely mandatory requirement for me to even consider another mobile device.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
http://www.mobile-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?stor
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/07/19/ana
Why do you say that? It's a perfectly legitimate business model to develop a platform that draws revenue from third-party licenses. The video game industry is an obvious example.
You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
Perhaps you can draw up a Five Year Plan for the video game industry and we can implement it after the Revolution, comrade.
I'll work on rounding up the proletariat to design games for the People, so we can all play without anyone being trampled under these bourgeois capitalists who build electronics for money and orchestrate evil plots to make their products more attractive through proprietary software.
--
ZDNet's George Ou Exposed as Ignorant Microsoft Shill (Zoon!)
The assault on reason isn't just a political phenomenon. Microsoft has long been developing its own cast of apologists who have eked out full time careers in the field of sputtering out ignorant, unfounded claims with such insistence and volume that the undecided simply have no alternative but to line up and applaud their seemingly convincing rhetoric. Among them is George Ou, who unsurprisingly blogs for CNET's ZDNet branded website.
Apple iPhone vs the FIC Neo1973 OpenMoko Linux Smartphone
Frequently compared to Apple's new smartphone, the OpenMoko FIC Neo1973 is described as the free and open software community's alternative to Apple's officially closed iPhone platform. Here's a look at what it really is and how it compares to the iPhone.
You don't buy an internet router from your ISP.
You don't buy cars from the Highway Department (or equivalent)
You don't buy your TV,dishwasher,microwave or other electrical appliances from the electricity company.
So why on earth do americans still meekly accept the logic of buying mobile phones from service providers?
The sooner unlocked phones proliferate, there won't be a need to jump through such hoops to unlock an iPhone, or any other phone.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
No, I call it really smart. He did his homework, found the DMCA provision/exemption that allowed him to do EXACTLY what he did, and announced it.... and as neither "pissing off companies" nor "screwing the warranty" is illegal in the US, he just assured himself a future job.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Grammar Nazi says, "Fewer! Anything that can be counted is Fewer! Less is for things that can't be counted, like water. Less water. Fewer smart people."
Thank you Grammar Nazi.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
I smell Lawsuits.
Lawyers my eye, this is probably covered by the DMCA reverse engineering, same as for unlocking XBoxes and so forth. Simply purchasing an iPhone does not convey complete ownership and the right to dismantle protections under such law. Worse, offering up the modified iPhone on eBay, which I expect to see cancelled, will not simply bring grief from AT&T, but Apple as well. (It's currently up to $15K, which I doubt will be honoured.) It's best if someone does unlock the iPhone for other GSM services to keep their yap shut and use it as they see fit. Sadly, ego must be fed, but at what price?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Note that he said "under such law" and not "the law is always right". An understanding of the law does not imply agreement.