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
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.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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?
Great Britain was the island you were looking for. 'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' are also not interchangeable.
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.
How dare the spellchecker recognize a perfectly valid word!
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
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?
Great Britain is a country
a great Briton is an inhabitant of that country who is either (a)notable or (b)obese
And, ok, mod me off topic, I've got the karma to burn.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
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 ]
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
Or to totally spell it out for the geo-politically impaired :
United Kingdom - passport issuing union of four countries (and their minor island possessions)
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
Great Britain - an island comprising three countries
England
Scotland
Wales
Ireland - an island comprising two countries
Northern Ireland
Ireland (aka Republic of Ireland)
Note that someone born in England is likely to identify themselves as English or British (born on the island of Great Britain) rather than as "citizen of the UK". AFAIK there's not even a word to identify yourself as a "United Kingdomer".
You deserve the mod points for the insightful statement that follows this, but I have to take exception to the above. Great Britain is an island, which contains the countries of England, Wales and Scotland, and forms part of the sovereign state of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or UK for short.
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.
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."
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.