Anonymous Programmers Reveal iPhone Unlocking Software

CNN reports details of a group of anonymous programmers who are planning to sell iPhone unlocking software on the Internet. They demonstrated the software hack for CNN and had a T-Mobile sim card working moments after removing the AT&T sim card. This is bound to stir up a lot of controversy: in the US iPhones are supposed to work only on the AT&T network in the first two years according to their agreement with Apple.

Comments

AT&T has no real claims

[ReallyEvilCanine]

AT&T has no claim against Apple since they delivered the phone locked to the AT&T network, as promised.

Any DMCA claim is going to be tough in light of the following:

From the Federal Register:

The Register has concluded that the software locks are access controls that adversely affect the ability of consumers to make noninfringing use of the software on their cellular phones. Moreover, a review of the four factors enumerated in 1201(a)(1)(C)(i)-(iv) supports the conclusion that an exemption is warranted.

-- Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006

And from the US Copyright Office itself:

There is no evidence in the record of this rulemaking that demonstrates or even suggests that obtaining access to the mobile firmware in a mobile handset that is owned by a consumer is an infringing act. Similarly, there has been no argument or suggestion that a consumer desiring to switch a lawfully purchased mobile handset from one network carrier to another is engaging in copyright infringement or in activity that in any way implicates copyright infringement or the interests of the copyright owner. [pg. 50]

...

the Register recommends that the following class of works be subject to exemption: Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. [pg. 53]

-- Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

The only claim they might be able to make is one against those selling the information which will, inside a few days, get out and be posted everywhere so that anyone can do it.

Telcos subsidise the phones locked to them

[Colin Smith]

Locks make no sense, at least not for consumers/customers. I can see how it could work to their benefit The reason locking came about is that telcos were subsidising phones. That $30 locked phone you've got? Cost $45 and would retail for $90. They make their money back over the years on call charges.

I have no idea if the iPhone is subsidised.

Re:Telcos subsidise the phones locked to them

[Shashvat]

Which currency are you calculating in? In most of SE Asia (Singapore, Malaysia, India), you can get a Nokia starting at US$45. This is a basic GSM cellphone (1100, 1110, 2100) with warranty but no contract, no SIM and completely unlocked.

Run that buy me again?

[delire]

First you buy the iPhone and then you pay more to unlock it? Is that how much 'freedom' costs?

Next thing we know Apple will buy-out the company and start selling unlocked iPhones at a premium..

At the risk of sounding trollish, the pro-consumer OpenMoko looks very appealing in light of Apple's good-looking but artificially tied-down device.

Re:Run that buy me again?

[nsebban]

The OpenMoko product, as much pro-consumer as it can be, is very far from being consumer-ready.

Re:locks make no sense

[digitalchinky]

I don't know that you really understand the corporate mindset behind locking down of phones. It's not about making the hardware cheaper, on a world scale it's already about as cheap as it's going to get - America is part of a small and unique set of countries in which the phone companies have given people the ability to get a desirable object 'right now', often with no up front payment - it feels like it's free. The contract already makes the phone company more money than what they paid for the handset, plus enough to keep their systems running, along with a little extra to bolster the profit margins.

They've found ways to make even more money on top of this by tweaking firmware to force customers to pay extra for things they could have already done for free. This is a cash cow, nothing less. People want the phone as soon as they feel the urge to have it, the market built itself around this desire. It's not wrong, I don't even think that it's bad. After all, even in America people can still buy a phone outright. They have a choice.

Re:iPhone in Europe

[IndieKid]

I know in the UK that it has been fairly common practice to lock down phones. Until recently, all subsidised phones on an Orange contract were locked to Orange (they might still be for all I know, I've never been on Orange).

As far as I know, Vodafone has never locked it's phones to only allow Vodafone SIMs (I've regularly used other network's SIMs in my Vodafone phone), but they do tend to put custom Vodafone firmware on the devices which can cause a loss in functionality if you put another SIM (say from Orange, T-Mobile etc) into the phone.

I don't think locking phones is illegal in the UK, but I'm fairly sure unlocking them isn't either, as you can wander down any high street and see people advertising unlocking services in store windows.

Re:locks make no sense

[Xyde]

http://iphone.fiveforty.net/wiki/index.php/GUI_App lications

There are currently 32 native iPhone apps on that page including 8 games, an AIM client, 2 IRC clients (not including BitchX), a fully functional VT100 terminal, RSS, eBook readers and much more with the development constantly growing. These are all open source and written in UIKit/Cocoa, with other apps happening that aren't listed there.

Just because the application development isn't officially Apple sanctioned doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Re:Maybe not surprising, but...

[LarsG]

They're a glimpse into how expensive the iPhone really is.

Are you a key employee at Apple and know how much they cost to build? Because the rest of us out here have to depend on tearing the phone apart and pricing the components - which at current best guess is at something like $250-$300. Except for the display, the components are pretty much standard off the shelf type stuff which is easy to price. So fess up, are the estimates on the display price way way low?

Thing is, the iPhone didn't happen before just because it's expensive

The iPhone happened because someone at Apple (Jobs, perhaps?) saw a market opportunity in the fact that most cell phones have a sucky UI. What makes the iPhone is a nifty multi-touch display and a lot of software development.

Traditional phone makers like Nokia don't have the same kind of incentive to sink a lot of cost in 'reinventing the UI'. Their current models are selling quite well, so why spend a lot of money on something that might or might not work. Not to mention legacy concerns - S60 has a thriving 3rd party software market, radical changes in the UI cause compatibility problems. Which is why you often see these huge jumps not from established players but from companies seeking entry to the market.

Probably not subsidized

[LKM]

A lot of news outlets have reported that the iPhone's price is not subsidized, among them reputable sources like ars technica.

But I guess your own question applies to you, too. Where's the evidence that it is subsidized?

Apple's Margins

[LKM]

Traditionally, Apple's margins have always been around 25%-35%. I'd be extremely surprised if the iPhone was different in any way; and so far, teardowns (which tend to underestimate prices somewhat) seem to suggest the iPhone's margin is business as usual for Apple.