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."

Comments

Correction

[Mateo_LeFou]

"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.

Re:Correction

[blackholepcs]

That's the problem with companies today. They "lease" you the equipment, with hidden terms and rules, and bullshit marketing that omits important facts that relate directly to your decision to purchase (lease) their product. Cell phone companies are one of the worst for this.

Re:Correction

[sirambrose]

You can also cancel your contract and keep the phone by paying a $175 termination fee. Since the new models are $200 cheaper than the old models, the new phone is still cheaper than the old one that cost $400.

Re:Correction

[ConfusedVorlon]

That's the problem with consumers today. They'd rather "lease" a discounted phone and pay more in the longer term with higher locked in rates.

Cell phone buyers are the worst for this, they more or less destroy the market for buying phones seperately.

Re:Correction

[Angostura]

That's the problem with cell-phone companies today. They subsidize the cost of the equipment, in the expectation that they might get some call revenue in exchange. Then they get all annoyed when you don't give them any call revenue. Weird that.

Re:Correction

[God'sDuck]

Or you get the contract and immediately resell it on one of the contract trade sites: http://www.google.com/search?q=trade+cell+phone+contract

Re:Correction

[howdoesth]

...wireless providers have no standards whatsoever (ethical or otherwise)... CDMA? GSM?

Re:Correction

[salmosri]

They do, in the UK you can purchase the new iphone on the pay as you go deal, which means no contract you pay the full price for the phone and you can do as you wish with it. Here is some info from the O2 deal.

Re:Correction

[molarmass192]

Italy does not have an "exclusive" carrier agreement. Also, France does not allow a phone to be sold only when tied to a contract. In fact, I think France forbids the selling a phone without an unlocked option. There's also some similar weirdness in Germany. So, regardless of what Steve said alluded to in his presentation, not much will change wrt the current iPhone options in Europe.

Re:Correction

[MrPerfekt]

Because some people irrationally think that one American provider is better than another... which is patently false. They all suck.

Re:Correction

[NtroP]

Slavery is a step up from living on the streets homeless and hungry (or being beaten to death), but that doesn't make it moral, nor something I should support if given the choice. I keep hearing your reasoning to justify using third-world slave labor, and I still find it unsavory.

I grew up in a third-world country. It's not "Slavery". People are falling all over themselves to get and keep these jobs. If there is anything negative to be said it's that there is no job security. What we would consider "poor working conditions" and "low pay" is a gold mine to these people. Stop trying to help them out of their jobs. Talk to them and they will tell you that.

Are there bad bosses? Sure. That happens everywhere. Are there some places that have poor working conditions? Sure. And we need to bring those to light and pressure them to improve. But for goodness sake, don't take these people's jobs away from them.

This makes sure the new iPhone is NOT CHEAPER.

[BoldAC]

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?

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries.

[larry bagina]

Vodafone sued T-Mobile/Apple (in Germany) over that and lost [During the lawsuit, they sold an unlocked iPhone for 999 Euros]. Orange (France) sells an unlocked iPhone for 749 Euros vs 399 locked. So nothign will change (except maybe a lower price for the locked version).

As far as I recall...

[oahazmatt]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Serious Callers Only]

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. Only reasonable if you don't realise that $325 price drop was taken out of your fees for the next x years of contract.

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.

Thank goodness for Android

[0xdeadbeef]

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?

Re:ER, non-story

[Silver Sloth]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable

[MBCook]

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.

Re:ER, non-story

[jrumney]

Great Britain is a country

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.

Three words: "Nokia N800 series"

[paco verde]

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)

Re:No turtlenecked CEO necessary

[LKM]

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.