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
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?
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.
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.
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 I'm going to be locked into a contract either way, I'd much rather have my phone subsidized (new plan) than not (old plan).
I was all set to buy one of the new iPhones until more data started leaking out. You know that nice iPhone plan they had? 450 minutes, unlimited data, 200 SMS for $60 a month?
Gone
In what can only be described as "easier", you now have to use the standard AT&T model. Their lowest plan is 450 minutes which is $45. You have to add $5 to get 200 SMS messages (note: this seems to include MMS and other things too, which is different). Then there is the iPhone data plan that you are required to buy: $30 a month.
So instead of a simple little $60 plan, they now expect me to pay... $80.
So let's see... $20 difference per month X 24 months = $480. Take out the cut they were paying to Apple (wasn't it like $5?) and that's another $120.
So AT&T's revenue goes up $600 per two year 3G contract.
I'm not so sure I want to pay $80 a month for an iPhone. I was hesitant with $60 but this makes me question things much more.
Congratulations again AT&T. You took the must buy product of the year for me and managed to screw it up.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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
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.
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.