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

It's not really surprising..

[QMalcolm]

..that people are going to use their gadgets in ways other than the ones they're 'supposed' to.

Third party

[edittard]

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 agreement can't be binding on a third party. Apple can say "hey, we tried." Whether AT&T think they tried hard enough is a different matter - and if they don't, well, it'll be lawyers at 100 paces.

Re:Third party

[N-icMa]

I have no idea how people bought these phones, but if Apple required you to sign a form promising not to use anything but AT&T for six months, then you wouldn't really be able to claim independence from the lock-in agreement.

Atleast

[pakar]

... here in sweden we are allowed to do whatever we want with hardware that we buy.....

Re:Atleast

[tsa]

Yes, but we live in Europe, the Continent of the Free...

Re:Atleast

[xigxag]

I've got nothing against Europe, but it's pretty lame if you think you're proving something by trotting out the same jingoistic slogans used by Uncle Sam. Europe's freer than the US in some respects, but not as free in others. There's no nation in the world that's totally free, and likely never will be, since "freedom" and "government" are a contradiction in terms.

On the other hand, if you were just referring to the freedom to buy an unlocked handset, well, um, never mind then. :)

locks make no sense

[_Shorty-dammit]

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.

Re:locks make no sense

[smilindog2000]

Worse than the cell-vendor locks are the application locks on the iPhone. Most of us are unwilling to buy a $600 phone and then hack it, potentially rendering it unusable. The application space for the iPhone are huge, yet we can't do dick. We could port Skype/OpenWengo/Gizo, gaim, and provide a shell. Can you believe there are zero native games on the iPhone? My wife uses an iPhone, but until I can legally program the damned thing, I'm not getting one.

Not bounding

[wannasleep]

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.

They are just unlocking a phone people!

[Frogbert]

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?

Re:They are just unlocking a phone people!

[Opportunist]

The big deal is that there are two companies that agreed to a mutually beneficial deal, ripping off their customer, and someone dared to muscle in and offer the customer what he wants.

In other words, the DMCA must come to the rescue.

Re:They are just unlocking a phone people!

[squiggleslash]

Now hold on there. I don't believe either Apple or AT&T have (really) made any threats over this. The latter was claimed to have made a threat by one unlocking group that has yet to demonstrate a working product and isn't even located within the US, but it's notable that both the group that's the subject of this article, and the kid who used a hardware hack a week or so ago and thus gets credit for being "first" have not reported any threats of legal action. Given the sheer improbability of this (evil mobile operators would more likely sue real phone unlockers) and given the lack of compelling evidence a lawsuit even exists, most people believe that the "lawsuit" is fictional, made up to drum up publicity.

AT&T, so far, seems content to let Apple handle the issue (which is all they can do, because AT&T doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, not having any relationship to people who have yet to activate an iPhone, and not owning any of the IP associated with the iPhone), and Apple seems content, thus far, to either ignore the issue or use technical measures. Apple's room for legal maneuvering is open to question too, given the US Copyright Office has already given a public, explicit, exemption from the DMCA for phone unlocking.

This is actually good for Apple

[Skapare]

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.

Great, but aren't they missing something?

[AccUser]

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.

Will it be fully functional?

[NoPantsJim]

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?

Re:Locking is anti-competitive

[eiapoce]

If the US government had any balls, the hackers wouldn't have to be doing this. I'd fix it for you:
If the US government backed consumers instead of industry, the hackers wouldn't have to be doing this.

Enrico

Heh

[Moraelin]

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.

Re:Heh

[hhw]

Just because it only costs $250-$300 to manufacture doesn't mean that's all the phone costs. There are a multitude of other costs involved here, including research & development, warranty/maintenance, support, distribution, sales, marketing, yada yada yada. Find some accurate estimates on what the total real cost for final delivery is to the end user, and that it's substantially less than $500 and you might have a point.

Re:Maybe not surprising, but...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"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.

Hunh?

[celtic_hackr]

That estimate only covers the cost of parts!

Not to be too cynical, but seeing as /. has all these folks who claim to be
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.