Slashdot Mirror
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.
..that people are going to use their gadgets in ways other than the ones they're 'supposed' to.
At the bottom of the
... here in sweden we are allowed to do whatever we want with hardware that we buy.....
Locks make no sense, at least not for consumers/customers. I can see how it could work to their benefit, but I don't give a rat's ass about them. If I wanted one, why would I want to be locked in to one specific service provider? My cellular provider up here in BC, Canada, which is Telus, puts stupid locks in their phones, too. I can't upload my own ring tones or anything like that, and I'm instead forced to pay them outrageous fees to download ringtones from them. Only because they've locked the phone to perform only the functions they want it to. No reason I shouldn't be able to upload my own ringtones if I want to, since the phones have that capability from the factory. It's only after Telus blocks those features that they are no longer available to use. Ridiculous. All things like this, DRM, etc, are doing nothing but giving me bad opinions of the companies that use such tactics.
When you purchase an iPhone you are not signing anything (other than a credit card slip). Hence, you have not entered in a contract with AT&T, so whatever AT&T spokesperson says, it is not tenable. Furthermore, unlocking one's phone is not illegal in the US.
I can't believe unlocking an iPhone causes such a stir. GSM phones are unlocked every day through mysterious hacks and the iPhone is no different. What is the big deal?
This is actually good for Apple because more people will buy an iPhone now that they know they will be able to use a less evil carrier.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I might be wrong, but wasn't the exclusive contract between Apple and AT&T put in place to ensure that AT&T would develop the network infrastructure and services to support the features of the iPhone? Sure, basic call functionality and SMS is available with all operators, but what about the other features, such as the visual voicemail?
I am personally looking forward to getting my grubbies on an iPhone once they land in the UK, and would be happy to be able to make a choice of operator/contract.
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
I haven't heard anything about the functionality of these unlocked phones. Are all of the features of the AT&T data plans functional with a different carrier or is it additionally locked down in some way? Also, what happens when Apple pushes out an update that disables this hack. If the developers can't come up with a new hack in time, what happens to all the people who paid for the original hack that no longer works?
Name...That...Autocomplete!
You must have failed econ 101...
The price of goods or services is chosen based on the highest price you can get and still sell enough. The cost of manufacturing goods doesn't determine the price at market, it determines whether or not you are in the game of selling the goods. If they cost more to make than you can sell them for you obviously don't sell them. If you can make a profit then you sell them.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
If the US government backed consumers instead of industry, the hackers wouldn't have to be doing this.
Enrico
Well fireworks are legal to set off in your backyard, they're small bombs...
If the bomb is big enough to damage someone else's property then they might arrest you for criminal damage, but if it just explodes in your back yard and makes a crater in your lawn noone will care.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
To quote Scot Adams' My New Favourite Response to people answering to their own mis-understandings of what he wrote, "I agree with your analysis of your hallucination."
I never said that the cost of manufacturing dictates the market price. It does however, yes, dictate whether you stay in that game or not. "Would it still sell for $1000?" is actually a damn valid question. It's the "can we stay in that game?" question, in fact.
Apple's model is based on getting a hefty part of the price subsidized by AT&T. Without it, would they still be in the game of selling iPhones? The others faced the exact same question, and that's why they didn't make an iPhone before. That's what I'm saying there.
So if you got tripped that badly by "Would it still sell for $1000?", then maybe it's you who needs to re-read those econ 101 notes. Because while you've proven that you can repeat the trivia, I see no sign of actual understanding there. _That_ question is exactly what determines whether you're in that game or not. If you don't understand that, the rest is just mechanically spewing trivia, and not much of a sign of economic wisdom.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Well, it's sorta a question of estimated market share, the way I see it. Someone probably figured it out like this:
- we'd sell X1 thousand units at price Y1, unlocked and for everyone
- we'd sell X2 thousand units at the much lower price Y2, even if it's tied to AT&T
Obviously they thought that X2 > X1.
Whether that's right or wrong, smart or dumb, I couldn't tell. But basically, yes, Apple obviously thought that that's a smart move. Feel free to agree or disagree with them, though.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"Thing is, that kind of agreements aren't just because Apple or AT&T are "evil" and want to tie you to their network. They're a glimpse into how expensive the iPhone really is. That price you see when you buy one is already minus AT&T's subsidies, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're quite hefty."
The funny thing about your post is that you're simply incorrect. The parts for the iPhone are about $250. Gluing them together doesn't cost another $250.
"Seeing the extent to which the iPhone is locked down, makes me think Apple negotiated some pretty damn hefty subsidies for it."
Incorrect yet again! This is not some extreme level of lock-down. It's simply an Apple product. Apple tells you how you're supposed to use it, and for about a week people use it that way, until someone figures out how to use it the way WE want to use it. Look at the Apple TV. Or running Windows on a Mac (Boot Camp only came out because someone figured out how to do it without Apple's help). Look at Linux on the iPod.
I've got a Macbook Pro and love it, so don't think I'm hating on Apple, but there's a certain way they do things, and the iPhone is business as usual.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Yeah, but the UK's a police state. Hell, you're not even citizens, you're subjects.
What Apple is doing is not price fixing. It's price setting. Price fixing when when two or more suppliers of a commodity agree to the price at which they offer the commodity. Usually the purpose of price fixing is to offer that commodity at a higher price than would occur in a free market. Apple is only one company and it's arguable that the iPhone is not a commodity. Apple can set whatever price they feel the market will bear. If customers don't like the price, they won't buy the phones.
Carping about Apple won't make them change their pricing policies. They have established themselves as innovators through their failures: the Lisa, and the Newton, and their successes: The iPod, the iMac, and probably the iPhone. Their formula is simple: concentrate on quality and ease of use. That innovator status gives them the ability to dictate price to downstream suppliers. I'll grant you that I may have paid Apple more money for my iPod than say Creative Labs or Microsoft. I can assure you that I've paid more money for my Mac Mini and iMac than I would have for an "equivalent" PC. But the measure of "value" is subjective and I consider the extra value from Apple's quality and ease of use to be worth the extra money.
-- Ecks
That estimate only covers the cost of parts!
/. has all these folks who claim to be
Not to be too cynical, but seeing as
uber geeks and hax0rs, I shouldn't have to state that they must have spent a
fortune on programming for this product. EVEN if they used only ultra cheap
programmers from you-know-where-places, it would still have taken many many
thousands of hours to write, and assuming it was put together in China, and shipped
to the US, a cost of $220 is about as realistic as the $1000 arse value.
No, I suspect, a more realistic cost to be in the neighborhood of $500 to produce.
My reasoning is based on:
1) having worked for years in the assembly of everything from EKGs to IBM Mainframes to 747 flight simulators
(not your video programs, but full scale mock ups of the cockpit), so I have firsthand knowledge of what
it takes to assemble electronic devices,
2) Having worked for years in the shipping business, I know what it costs to ship products from China in 40'
containers over the ocean,
3) the amount of advertising that was done,
4) the cost of software development (my current line of work),
5) cost of prototyping, packaging, product manuals, etc.