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.
This seems like a normal practice to me to be honest. Almost every smartphone that people will buy will come with a contract at the time of purchase to get the price lowered to a point that is reasonable. It happened with my old 8525 to get the $600 phone down to $285, and now it's happening with the iPhone to get the $400 phone down to $200. It just seems to be the industry standard, and before people start to complain about not being able to use it with t-mobile or another GSM carrier, I just want to say that you don't NEED to get an iPhone. You can get whatever smartphone comes with your service. If you want to travel with a smartphone, then you can get a different one too to put different SIM cards in and only pay for those times you use it.
PouchPC 2.13ghz C2D, 8gb ram, 9800 GT, 1.5tb, Vista Business.
Apple is going to have a serious problem applying this in a lot of European countries. They have laws that actually forbid this sort of tying 2 vendors into 1 product.
I know for a fact that France and the Netherlands have laws for that, and if I remember correctly, Germany has as well.
So either they're not going to be able to sell iPhones there, or they have to be sold seperately, which then opens them up for unlocking anyway.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
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...
The contract lock-in insures that the new iPhone is more expensive than the last.
If you do the iPhone math, the new phone will cost you more than the older phone despite the "half the price" ad campaign.
If AT&T really drops free sms, it'll cost even more.
I don't mind paying more. However, for somebody like me not in a G3 area, why should I have to pay the G3 transfer higher prices?
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.
As far as I recall, Apple was actually shopping around for a few different providers. Apparently when they were in talks with Verizon there were too many demands on Verizon's end. (Surprised?) AT&T was the largest carrier available willing to let the phone be what Apple wanted it to be. Just something to think about.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
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
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?
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?
you have to give back the phone, in new condition.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
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.
If O2's network was good enough I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this. However, O2's network is simply not worth being tied into. I put an O2 sim into my HSDPA phone (TyTN II) and I swear it wasn't even getting 64kb/s, so it's not going to benefit much from the 3G version. If this were on Vodafone in the UK, I would extend the contract as that was several times faster than O2's when I tested it (It felt about 5x faster at least).
So while you're at it, as you'll be buying a phone and a contract anyway why not the phone company giving you some rebate as they're going to make wads of cash from the monthly fee any way ?
The only current problem with the iPhone is that they have exclusive contract with some service providers.
Whereas, in several European countries (including here in Switzerland, but also mandated by law in France as reported recently on
The two aren't even bound together (the phone was just taken from the shelf) and nothing forces you to use this contract and this phone together (you could cheaply get and extra handset by extending your own current contract and give the phone as a present to you S.O.)
Some service providers have their own shop which may sell some special package with a "special edition phone" (= read : the provider logo on the phone's shell, 1 additional customized screen background and ringtone, and some preinstalled crap that you won't use at all).
But in most shops and malls, you just pick up the phone you want, and eventually the contract you want from the provider of your choice.
The idea of subsidizing phone with provider contract isn't stupid. It's the complete lack of choice for those contract that is debilitating.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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
The article I just read seems to indicate otherwise in Australia:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23839650-5016091,00.html
In fact the opening blurb of the article states: "THE next-generation 3G Apple iPhone will be available in Australia on prepay plans without a contract when it is released here next month."
This is how things normally happen over here. You can buy the phone outright at a premium or go with a contract and a reduced (initial) price.
So basically, you will be able to buy the phone unlocked but it is going to be a tad more expensive than the $199 / $299 price points that were mentioned.
And exactly what ethical duty to us would they be upholding by offering an unsubsidized, contract-free iPhone?
I'm curious to hear your answer because, while the grandparent was right about the ethical duty of fulfilling a contract you agree to, I don't think Apple owes an ethical duty to us that would require them to offer an unlocked phone.
Boom Shanka
You know what makes business sense to me? Not buying an iPhone.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Since when was the pound sterling a postfix symbol? You don't write 50$ do you? On the other hand, at least Slashdot has recognised your character set encoding...
:(
But yes, 8GB is free with the £45 tariff, and the 16GB is free with the £75 tariff. Still, assuming an 18 month contract, that ain't cheap. £1350
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
It was not until deregulation (carter era?? I cant quite recall when it happened now) that you could buy any old phone and attach it. It may also surprise you to learn there was only one phone company too.
At the time it made a lot of sense. The networks made a lot of assumptions about what was connected to them. They trusted the hardware. they trusted signals coming in from other nexuses. trust trust trust.
but just like trusting client side authentication leads to grief, the rise of phone phreaks injecting their own signals into a trusted network led to free phone calls.
I can still see why the cell phone company has reasons that they don't just want to permit any possible activity on their network. They are all about quality of service for as many possible people not an all-you-can buffet where a few people can pig out.
But I digress. Leasing telephone equipment has been the norm since alexander graham bell. this little experiement where you "purchase" a phone then lease the line has been pretty short lived so far. So get over it.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
It appears that O2 (in the UK) is going to offer the iPhone on a Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) deal. This is a non-contract way of running a phone over here. You buy top-up cards with airtime (say £10 or £20) when you run out.
If the premium on the phone isn't huge (you usually pay more for PAYG as it's not a guaranteed income to the operator), it could be a good way of getting a non-contract iPhone to jail-break. If it can be jail broken (I give it 10 hours, any advances).
More info : http://www.o2.co.uk/iphone/paygo
"If A equals success, then the formua is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut" - A Einstein.
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.
I think that John Gruber nailed it. By halving the price and rolling out in 70 countries simultaneously, Apple is going for market share in a huge way. If you thought the hype leading up to the US launch last June was over the top, I think you'd better go hide in a cave in the weeks leading up to July 11th. The global excitement and anticipation will feed on itself and drown out any other consideration, as far as the general public is concerned. The iPhone noise is going to be so loud that other mobile manufacturers are going to be completely drowned out, and they damned well know it. Nothing they do between now and the launch of iPhone 2.0 will even register on the public consciousness; they see the train coming and can't get off the track. I strongly suspect that July 11th will ring in like the crack of doom for most of them.
Ah, but don't you see, like most Slashdotters, you fail to realize that you are not an ordinary consumer of electronics. The iPhone wasn't designed for you, and the marketing isn't aimed at you. The general public, however, is going to leap at the iPhone like a trout going for a fly. As bizarre as it may seem to people on this and other tech forums, in-store activation is going to be seen as a huge draw for Joe and Jane Consumer, to whom even the relatively simple iTunes activation is a pain in the butt. They want the instant gratification of buying their new iPhone and being able walk out of the store boasting to their friends: "OMG Joanie! Guess what I'm using to call you!!"
I think that Gruber is absolutely correct: the iPhone only has two new hardware features, namely, 3G networking and GPS, which means Apple was concentrating on getting a cheaper 3G iPhone into the hands of as many consumers as possible. Money quote:
"The physical phone is not the story. A year from now, the iPhone 3G will be replaced by another new model. The platform is the story. Platforms have staying power, and, once entrenched, are very hard to displace."
Bold emphases mine. The platform is indeed the story, and Microsoft is painfully aware of what Apple is trying to do (and may very well succeed at doing), namely producing the gateway device to Web 2.0 and their true bid for world domination, the iTunes Store. People pay billions each year for ringtones for God's sake, not because they're worth that much, but because of the convenience of being able to get it instantly. You had better believe that they'll happily pay through the nose for the convenience of having music, video, games, etc. right at their fingertips. It's all about impulse purchasing, something retailers have known about for decades, which is why candy and other high margin items are located right at grocery checkout stands. People will pay for instant gratification and not regret it.
I think the bigger story here is that Apple will not be selling them online. As far as I know, the first Apple product not to be sold online since they started the Apple Store.
From the Apple Store Online:
Where to buy:
iPhone will be available in 8GB (black) and 16GB (black or white) models1 at Apple Retail Stores and AT&T Stores.
The absence of "right here on this page" is sad. If you want one, you're going to have to sit with the mob on July 11th. Boo.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
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."
BUT, your claim that the take-home lesson of Economics 101 is that people are rational is ludicrous. People are clearly not rational in their economic decision-making, and this is why so many of the principles of Economics 101 fail in the real world.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
* Apple's iPhone
* AT&T Phone Service
* The purchase of an iPhone is conditional on signing a contract for AT&T phone service.
* AT&T is one among a few phone providers for which the iPhone could be used and contains a substantial portion of that market
* AT&T is a national cell phone service provider who can directly impact the success of other national providers which are otherwise capable of using the iPhone on their network
New Activation Process and BRE: The iPhone 3G will be activated at point of sale when the device is purchased, in store. The BRE period will change from 14 days to 30 days and will require the device to be returned to place of purchase before service is cancelled.
http://gizmodo.com/5014909/att-memo-to-retail-managers-shows-iphone-3g-policy
Sounds to me like if you "can't find" your phone, they'll just keep billing you for the service.
02 are advertising a pay as you go option http://www.o2.co.uk/iphone/paygo
'Customers will soon be able to enjoy all the great features of iPhone without a monthly contract with the iPhone for Pay & Go'
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 ]
The iPhone alternative (for freedom lovers)
"This article explains how to get an even better mobile Internet experience, without having to do business with either AT&T or Apple--with no contracts and no $60 per month bill just to surf the Net."
(Surveillance State blog)
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.
No, that's what's supposed to happen in mob rule. Some of us believe in fundamental limitations on government power and regulations in order to protect our freedom. And yes, I would consider the ability to sell a phone with certain additional requirements part of freedom, just as I would consider the ability to sell a phone without those strings attached part of freedom also.
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.