Slashdot Mirror
Apple Cracks Down On iPhone Unlockers
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Apple and its wireless operator partners have finally figured out a way of cracking down on iPhone unlockers by making it a requirement to sign up for a contract before you can get your hands one. "It's obvious why this has happened though. This method means you're tied into a contract, or you're paying O2 and Apple a massive wad of cash for the privilege of owning a 3G iPhone. We're disappointed about this decision, but it does make business sense." Both ATT in the US and O2 in the UK are implementing the new activation system on July 11th, when the iPhone 3G goes on sale."
"a massive wad of cash for the privilege of owning a 3G iPhone" If you're not allowed to do what you want with the device, you do not own it.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Um, this has always been the case, since the first round of the first models started being resold without contracts Apple instigated this. Old news, non-story, and hasn't actually stopped anyone from doing this.
I was seriously considering getting one of the new 3G iPhones, but now I will definitely not.
The more they tighten their grip, the more customers will slip through their fingers...
Nah, it has more to do with the fact that the iPhone is ludicrously expensive AND you must lock yourself into an expensive 18 month contract.
Perhaps that strategy works in the US. It doesn't work in Europe where you can literally have any phone for free on the sorts of tariffs and contracts the iPhone ties you to.
No problem, they will sell the unlocked version at 999â and the problem is solved. Right now they are doing it in France.
They will be sold unlocked, probably at a higher price than the $199 which is going to be price in most countries. And certainly many of those phones will find their way to countries where you can only buy iPhones that are tied up to a operator. Still, none of this will prevent Apple from cashing in a very thick wad of cash from the sheeple that buy one in countries where they are tied up to operator X.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
We'd be much better off if mobile phones were sold as items like computers or telephones, without contract, and the phone companies concentrated on providing a good service, instead of 'adding value' by gimping phone software, charging insane amounts for data, or tying users into long term contracts.
$500 is a reasonable price for the technological marvel which is a modern cellphone, if you can't afford that, perhaps you can't afford a highly priced monthly contract either.
As it is in the UK the iPhone may be available without a contract from O2 via the Pay as you Go packages, but they're being remarkably coy about that, they probably want to sucker people into signing 18 month contracts for 30-75GBP a month first before unveiling PAYG.
I see why Apple has done this (as you say it's standard practice) but that doesn't make it any more palatable.
PS Can't translate a £ symbol !! WTF Slashdot, this is 2008.
It's not the iPhone's capabilities that make it successful, it's the fact that Apple made a phone as capable as the iPhone compatible with AT&T's business strategy. Was the iPod the first portable MP3 player? No, it was a combination of user interface, styling, and business model, that made it what it is today.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
They probably were a necessary evil to make the VV happen in the first place; I'm sure it's non-trivial to implement, but I doubt it's rocket science either. At this point, it's almost certainly just contractual obligations - remember, Apple+AT&T are in bed for, reportedly, five years from the initial iPhone launch. That means iPhone+AT&T only (within the US) until June 2012.
Of course by that point it won't matter, as all of the cell companies will have bought each other up, and then will proceed to purchase the FCC.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Getting cell phone companies in the U.S. to abandon the "locked-in" model at this point would require a new law or high-level legal ruling. And, since the telecoms basically own Congress and the Presidency, it ain't gonna happen.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
While carriers might still be able to lock Android phones, there will undoubtedly be unlocked phones available, since there is no monopoly on the platform.
Apple + AT&T = single point of failure
Think about how absurd it would be if, in the old days, you had to buy your computer from the phone company because it had a modem?
Time will likely solve this issue as Chinese reverse-engineering development teams (and "ghost shifts" at probably the same factories making current 'official' 3G iPhones get to cranking out 'overages' lol)
Then again, if the killer app is not the device but the method by which it is unlocked.... surely this will not increase handset theft or there is always the 100% 'honest' 3G iPhone vendor unlocking the phones in house for some under the table cash?
Just what is so technically savvy about the new unlocking method or is this simply some lawyer-authored bulletproof contract that one must sign in fresh blood?
I for one compliment the cloners in order to avoid those ridiculous lock-in contracts. This is the world of competition, and the nature of global competitors.
How useful would it be for Asus' eeE PC to only work under contract and only from an Asus Wi-Fi router? It is a matter of time before someone creates a truly unlocked Wi-Fi handset that VoIPs whenever possible with Vonage et al, and other times uses the SIM for whatever carrier you choose to use that day. I can use my laptop with a variety of pay ISPs even at the same time. A few more evolutions of these devices and stiff competition will likely leave consumers getting a better product not crippled deliberately. This is why I despise the iTunes lock-in on iPods (and will not own one as a result). I remember when MP3 Players were as easy to access as USB memory sticks and they played nearly anything despite its source... Given Apple does make some sharp looking items, but they are not consumer-friendly due to their hardware lock-ins. I'd love to use Tiger or Spotted-Leopard or whatever it is called these days on my Intel PC hardware, I'd love to just use windows explorer to copy MP3 files onto my Nano. I'd love to swap SIM chips in my iPhone and use whatever carrier I am using at the time... But NO.. They are lawyer-empowered consumer-restraining capitalists above all else. So I pay for and own NONE of the Apple devices mentioned above.
I'm sick to death of being some big company's bitch. I don't get dinner and a drink before they ask me to drop trou, grab my ankles and spell run. The hell with Apple and AT&T. It's a bloody phone, people! It is supposed to make and receive voice calls. Instead, it's a portable porn viewer that makes calls. Idiots. When will upgrade fatigue hit the Mac fanboys?
Pax Vobiscum
Different price plans mean different initial outlay.
How else would you sort out the purchase of the iPhone?
As they have different initial outlay, they aren't going to let you pick up an iPhone for £59 then choose a cheaper tariff. The only way to offer the different initial costs is to make sure that the tariff you have matches.
It really isn't some conspiracy. It isn't to crack down on phone unlockers. There is nothing to stop you unlocking after purchase.
They are just covering the subsidy through the tariff.
chris at darkrock dot co dot uk
http colon slash slash www dot darkrock dot co dot uk
If you want to kill your customer base, be my guest. When's that Android phone coming out?
Your links are broken, they point to something that is not quite as good as, much less superior than, an iPhone... even the current one. Especially so though after the July 11 software update and app store.
but it's not subsidized by the voice and data plan, so you pay a penalty for buying one.
It's very nice but it's simply no iPhone. It's not even as good as potential Android devices quite honesty, why you would buy an N95 now without considering an Android device coming before too long seems like a weird choice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I understand. From the point of view of other smartphone users it make sense. From my point of view (potential iPhone customer), they just gave me a $20 a month price hike.
If they dropped the price of the existing plans I could understand. I'm not going to complain about $65 a month instead of $60. Maybe even $70.
But they took the incredibly simple iPhone plans (pick you number of minutes, you're all set, you get SMS and everything) and switched them back to the pick your option mess while raising the price at the same time.
I don't intend to buy an iPhone now because of this. I'm not paying $80 a month. I'm seriously hoping AT&T gets some kind of brain and cuts rates on their plans before the iPhone goes on sale, or has a special sale (buy in the first month and get $20 off a month... forever). That would get me back.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Maybe not in the US. But take a look on a map over Europe. Lots of countries. Roaming can be really expensive. So people that travel regularly between countries (which many do) need to buy a local SIM card when entering a new country for cheap access. This only works if your phone is unlocked and accepts foreign SIM cards.
)9TSS
The new iPhone again will not be available in Russia or in China (currently the two countries with the most iPhone users after the USA). However, I am sure that the people there will have their 3G toy almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Many "Businessmen" will buy the phone from one country (Germany, India, etc.) for 199, sell the contract there and then sell the phone to eager customers in China and Russia, who can't buy it directly, for 399. This scheme has been wildly in use for quite some time now and I don't think that Apple can do anything about it.
I guess it doesn't really matter too much for iPhones sold in Canada. we really only have one GSM provider anyway (there are 2, but one owns the other). As long as we can Jailbreak, it's fine with me. Also, wouldn't things like the stealthsim still work? I don't know anything about them but they seem to go in between the SIM and the phone, making unlocking the phone itself unnecessary. Does anybody know more about how these things work?
It seems to me that people will hack things as long as there is a demand for it. As long as people want unlocked iPhones, people will find ways to unlock them. Apple knows this, ATT knows this. If you have to sign up a contract to get a phone, then unlocking is not really a problem because at this point:
1)Apple has sold a phone.
2)ATT has sold a contract.
Now you can do whatever you like with the phone, ATT and Apple have both gotten what they wanted. Again, as long as I can jailbreak it and do what I want with it, it's fine with me.
why do some of you include the cost of the plan in the TCO for the iphone? the new pricing model is the same for all phones (go to ATT and check - the data plan is for PDA/Smartpone, there isn't a line item for the iphone) - so regardless of the hardware you buy your plan is the SAME (minus PAYG which has been dropped for the iphone) ATT PRESS RELEASE: http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=25791 The new agreement between Apple and AT&T eliminates the revenue-sharing model under which AT&T shared a portion of monthly service revenue with Apple. Under the revised agreement, which is consistent with traditional equipment manufacturer-carrier arrangements, there is no revenue sharing and both iPhone 3G models will be offered at attractive prices to broaden the market potential and accelerate subscriber volumes. The phones will be offered with a two-year contract and attractive data plans that are similar to those offered for other smartphones and PDAs. AT&T anticipates that these offers will drive increased sales volumes and revenues among high-quality, data-centric customers. Currently, less than 20 percent of AT&T's postpaid subscribers have integrated devices capable of voice, Web and data applications. Based on the company's experience, average monthly revenues per iPhone subscriber are nearly double the average of the company's overall subscriber base. With a two-year contract, the price of an 8GB iPhone 3G will be $199; the 16GB model will be priced at $299. Unlimited iPhone 3G data plans for consumers will be available for $30 a month, in addition to voice plans starting at $39.99 a month. Unlimited 3G data plans for business users will be available for $45 a month, in addition to a voice plan.
If anything this is going to do wonders for Apple iPhone sales in a downward direction. Make it even harder for them to reach the magic 10 million sales in a year -- make that 18 months now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Get an opensource solution like OpenMoko which will happily let you run whatever you want, even VoIP over free WiFi (Or if you don't like hacking, get one of the Skype VoIP WiFi phones). Thus you'll have your phone without giving any money to those evil corporations.
Big News : Phone service cost you monney. Either get along with it or move to something else (free WiFi).
Or simply get an iPod Touch.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
" Can the 95 kazillion candybars Nokia sells connect to the Internet as well as the iPhone?"
:)
Yes, via built in XHTML/WAP browser or better, J2ME Opera Mini 4, there are lots and lots of RSS readers etc. sometimes built right into device itself. There is no "lock" or anything and even simplest Sony Ericsson devices can multitask Java applications. I didn't hear any phone "melting" because user dared to multitask either.
Symbian, WinCE and RIM will keep leading the real market unless Apple dares to open the device to true applications.
I am also posting from Safari which is part of my Leopard Family license and using one of 3 macs at my home now, planning an additional Intel Mini. It doesn't change my view against locked iPhone tied to pathetic networks (especially Vodafone TR). I keep using Nokia, Sony Ericsson Symbian based handsets since I can't really be bothered to hack anything. I click apps and they install... I multi task. I change themes. There is huge competition on software scene. I was "watching" WWDC with my Opera Mobile/Symbian, Skype calling with Fring and chatting on IRC same time, with my Nokia E65, sort of entry level Symbian S60 phone. Nobody died as result of multi tasking or running non approved applications.
Apple is doing the same mistakes on Smart Phone market they did years ago. It is about vendor lock in and this time, amazingly, software lock in. So called fans (in fact fanatics in every sense) are making things even worse.
Except when you can't. In the U.S, it's probably no big deal if you can't get unlocked phones. In Europe, where you can't spit without hitting two other countries, it is. The people here want phones to be unlocked by government mandate; some governments have followed the people's will. That's what typically is supposed to happen in a democracy.
First, despite of what you might have heard, a corporation is not a person. Sure, corporations are made of people, but a corporation should not have the same basic rights as a person.
Why not?
Because if a corporation is a person, nobody is accountable for that person's actions.
If you start a business as an individual, and you expect to have the freedom to do x thing (for example, to sell a product at a reduced price reflective of an ongoing service agreement; or possibly to sell a widget at a reduced price because it is slightly defective [while disclosing that minor deviation to the consumer]), or any of the other scenarios you might come up with under the fundamental freedom to contract for whatever you like, absent illegality, why should it be different when your one-man shop grows into a local chain?
Because it's a trade-off. If you create a corporation, you get some things, such as protection ensuring that the things you personally own won't be taken away from you if the corporation goes belly-up. In exchange, that corporation has a few less rights than you have.
If you don't want to make that trade-off, you're free not to.
As far as transactions are concerned, there's no reason to deny a company those rights simply because it has successfully grown beyond a single person. To do so would burden the expansion of business, something we would frown upon as a society.
I'm not sure why you think that everything that puts a burden on the expansion of a business is automatically a bad thing. Whether something puts a burden on the expansion of a business is one aspect of evaluating something; not the only aspect. Societies are made up of humans, and their goal should be to make these humans' lives better. If supporting corporations does that, cool. If not, there's no reason to support corporations.
I find it interesting that a lot of people have that idea that supporting corporations is a goal in its own right. It's not, it's a means to an end.
Corporations don't have the same individual rights with respect to liberty and privacy, but treating them as a "person" as business transactions is the only approach that makes sense.
If that is the case, you certainly have not provided any evidence supporting it. Obviously, I couldn't disagree more.
Mob rule implies that there is no law, that the majority decides on a whim and punishes those which don't adhere with their decision. That is not how democracy works.
That's exactly how a democracy works.
No. See below.
That's also why we don't have one.
Speak for yourself :-)
Your "mob rule" remark implies that you think the voting people replace courts. Not the case.
Well it's not my comment, and risking putting words in someone else's mouth, legislative power overrides courts.
Not true. Courts can throw out laws if they are against the constitution, and - in some cases - even prevent laws from being voted on if they are against the constitution. Furthermore, new laws are not retroactive. Hence, new laws can't override existing court decisions.
If the "voting people" (to borrow your term) get angry and pass a law using mob rule, the courts are obliged to obey it.
Not true, see above.
In a direct democracy, the courts cannot exercise power against the will of the people.
Again, not true.
That's why it's a fundamentally flawed system for anything larger than a small town.
Switzerland seems to be doing just fine.
Really, I think it's obvious that you are severely misinformed. I suggest you read up on that stuff; opinions without factual background are useless.
If there is a triggering event to override popular decision or prevent its immediate enactment, it is not a direct democracy. It may be the closest functional modern analogue, but the reference is a misnomer. Athens was not a democracy, at least by modern standards, because only some people from some families could vote. That is an oligarchy. You could argue that they represented the others, but that would be a representative democracy.
What your argue about Switzerland not being a direct democracy is that it doesn't match your own definition of "direct democracy". For most of us a direct democracy is one where the people are the actual rulers, instead of their representatives. That holds true there. People can gather, and make their own laws, voting for them afterwards. In my country they can do that, but there are lots of restrictions, and our representatives have much more power than that.