Unlocked iPhones in US For $649

Endoflow2010 writes "Apple on Tuesday started selling an unlocked version of its iPhone 4, starting at $649. A 16GB unlocked iPhone 4 will set you back $649, while a 32GB version is selling for $749. Both are available in black or white; the black will ship within one to three business days, while the white is available in three to five days, according to the Apple Web site. The benefit of an unlocked phone is that you are not locked into a two-year contract with a particular provider. But it also means that you don't get the subsidized pricing provided by someone like AT&T or Verizon. The same phones with a contract cost $199 and $299."

Comments

Data plan cost the same

[recoiledsnake]

The data plan will cost the same as buying it on a contract. Only TMobile gives a $10 discount. The govt should make this practice illegal like it's done in the EU.

Re:Data plan cost the same

[DdJ]

It will work on T-Mobile's network since both are GSM phones. But since T-Mobile uses a different technology for 3G speeds, it will only work at Edge (2G) networking speeds. But for many people that will be fine.

It will not work on Sprint's network because only GSM phones are being sold unlocked, and Sprint uses a CDMA network, like Verizon. (But there is every chance that next year a dual-mode phone will exist instead of two different single-mode phones, and an unlocked version of that could well work on Sprint.)

Re:Data plan cost the same

[Andy Dodd]

Small correction: Same technology, different frequency band.

Since it doesn't support T-Mo's 3G bands, there's not much point to it unless you'll be doing a lot of international travel. If it's only going to be fully functional on AT&T, you may as well go for the contract, since you won't be saving any money on service.

Re:Data plan cost the same

[node 3]

I wonder why Apple is offering this if no carrier has an appropriate pricing plan to support it? This is like paying cash for a car and STILL making a payment on it every month. Why?

The short answer is: because people want it.

(it's funny, people bitch about phones being carrier-locked, then act confused when a phone is offered without a carrier-lock)

The longer answer is:

- So you don't have to enter a 2 year contract.
- For use overseas, being able to buy a local SIM instead of paying AT&T's high international roaming rates
- It makes the iPhone more readily available in countries and on carriers which it's not currently sold on

Which is to say, because people want it.

Re:Data plan cost the same

[mspohr]

You can use this phone with an ATT 'pay as you go' plan. You can get calls for 10 cents a minute and buy data ($15 for 100 MB $25 for 500 MB). No contract required.

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/pyg-cell-phone-plans.jsp

I don't use the phone part much so my calls are only a few dollars a month. I only use data for email and web browsing so use less than 100 MB a month.

My cost is usually about $20 a month.

Re:Data plan cost the same

[tlhIngan]

Know, if there was a way to copy the needed software to create an "officially" unlocked iPhone, using this phones software, from carrier locked ones life would really be good. Better yet, let this be a prelude for ATT to being able to unlock subsidized iPhones.

It's interesting actually.

Every iPhone4 is manufactured the same (I'm talking GSM ones, not counting the Verizon/CDMA ones). They're loaded with software and shipped out to Apple. Every serial number issued is recorded.

What happens when you buy an iPhone4 is this. For carrier sold phones, Apple records the serial numbers of every phone they ship out, and in their database it's marked as "Carrier locked". For phones sold at the Apple store, if you pay for a contract-free one, it's marked in the database as "unlocked", else if you buy it carrier locked/subsidized, it's marked as "carrier locked" as well. The baseband at this time only has the iMEI and nothing else.

Now, the next step is important, and it doesn't matter if it's done by the carrier in store or by you. The phone is plugged into the PC and it talks with iTunes. The phone queries the baseband and asks it what the carrier ID of the SIM that's inside is. It passes this information to iTunes along with its serial number, which contacts Apple and Apple looks into the database to see what phone it is.

If it's an unlocked phone, Apple ignores the carrier ID, and passes back a baseband configuration blob that basically keeps it unlocked. If it's a locked phone, it takes that carrier ID and produces a baseband configuration that locks the baseband to that carrier ID.

Note that the only time the phone knows it's locked is during the initial "Connect to iTunes" phase, which is why you must have a SIM inside for it (iTunes complains if there's no SIM). Subsequent times (during a restore, say), having a SIM inside it doesn't matter.

This also means that the carrier locking only happens during this period as well. You can buy a phone from AT&T, stick in say a Rogers SIM card, connect it to iTunes, and you'll have a phone locked to Rogers instead of AT&T.

These blobs are probably signed by Apple to ensure that replay attacks aren't possible, and are keyed to IMEI.

This may mean that right now, it's not possible to re-configure the baseband with a new blob. I expect iOS 5 to allow this capability though with a new baseband firmware. The use of iCloud would mean a user would purchase the unlock option, then restore their phone - iCloud backs up the data, the phone erases user data and restores itself to default, then the user set up begins while it fetches a new configuration blob. iCloud then restores the phone.

And, yet, AT&T won't unlock current locked iPh

[yossie]

So, knowing better than to waste my time, I called AT&T today and, as expected, "Apple still doesn't allow us to unlock iPhones." Anyone have a clue if this policy is ever going away?

Re:And, yet, AT&T won't unlock current locked

[sehgalanuj]

Apple not allowing unlocking is a load of nonsense. All across the world there are multiple careers who offer unlocking of iPhones, so obviously Apple is not the culprit, but rather AT&T is. There are some countries where multiple careers offer iPhones and in these places you will find iPhones unlockable through a particular service provider, while another tries to lock you in by not offering that service.

Here in Germany, I had T-Mobile unlock all my iPhones thus far after the contract expires or is terminated. It is nothing but the absolute greed of AT&T that stops them from asking Apple for unlocks.

Apple has nothing to lose with a carrier asking them to unlock an iPhone. The carrier, AT&T, does. Do your own math on who is more likely to be responsible.

Re:And, yet, AT&T won't unlock current locked

[realityimpaired]

There are some countries where you can buy an unlocked iPhone by buying it directly from Apple instead of from a carrier.... Canada is one of them, and the Canadian version most definitely will work with ATT (since it works on Telus, Bell, and Rogers, who all use the same technology and frequencies as ATT).... of course, I ended up buying an LG phone for half the price with more features. :)

Re:What the market will bear.

[MetalliQaZ]

It isn't quite so simple. This is a common argument (especially from republicans) but it relies on an actual free market. Cellular phone carriers do not qualify in the US, because they have government-enforced monopolies* on the spectrum that the cell phones use. They use that power to force unfair pricing strategies on the consumer. Usually they do this while saying that they are striving to lower prices for the consumer. They are lying.

* Actually a duo-opoly, with ATT and Verizon sharing the exclusive access. The reason they don't have to compete is because they don't share phone technology. EDGE, HSPA, EV-DO, LTE, etc. Users of one network can't take their business elsewhere.

Re:What the market will bear.

[pnewhook]

Actually I agree with AC (and I'm no Rebublican)

There is nothing wrong with the pricing that I can see. Apple can charge what they like. And the cellular providers can charge what they like, clearly they are giving a discount to be tied into a contract.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this and I see no reason for government interference.

Re:What the market will bear.

[imric]

For a change I agree with an AC spouting "free market!". Even though the telephony market is contracting and will soon be a duopoly in the states. Unless you believe a smart phone should be the common baseline for communications, that is. Unless you think it's impossible to support yourself in any way without a smartphone.

And even if a smartphone is necessary to live (ha!), Boost mobile (for example) has non-contract Android service, IIRC.

Unless cell becomes the only way, until Apple and the big carriers hold an abusive monopoly on service, companies should be free to price themselves out of the market, and idiots should be free to spend their money on luxury goods. The government should only get involved when you are dealing with non-luxury items, if then.

Re:What the market will bear.

[pnewhook]

So don't buy the phone for full price. That's like complaining there are different prices for a car for lease, vs payments, vs cash purchase. It's up to the manufacturer to set the price how they see fit. If you don't like it buy something else, send a complaint letter, whatever. Don't go whining to the government because you think it is unfair.

Re:What the market will bear.

[imric]

No.

"For many self-employed people some sort of cell phone is necessary. It wasn't true some time ago, but nowadays you often need to be able to answer the phone no matter where you are. It doesn't have to be an iPhone, but it does have to be signed up with a cell phone carrier. "

Yes, perhaps - but if necessary, it can be written off. And you don't need to get a cell phone with a contract, and it doesn't have to be an iPhone, so I don't think that line of reasoning applies.

"This means that, as a practical necessity, many people need to sign a contract"

No. Contract-free phones are available and cheap. This thread was about unlocked phones having little effect on what is paid for access, while increasing what is paid for the phone. Even further, I do believe there are contract-free Android smartphones.

"This means that the free market doesn't work"

What most free marketeers call a 'free market' is more like an unfettered market. They take an extremist's view. That is NOT my view, however. From what I have seen, the free market works best when there are limits and regulations. Let businesses duke it out, sure - but keep them in the ring. Keep them from using knives and guns or other items that may harm the audience. Keep the audience from doing the same and harming the competition.

The free market works. Unfettered markets don't.

For an unfettered market to work,all things must be luxuries (consumers must be free not to buy), all transactions must be perfectly reversible (poisoning the water the land or air for a quick buck - or killing workers - must be 'fixable' for the same price or less as the profit made), and all markets must be infinite (labor must always be free to go get another job, for example). Having no regulation means that businesses in the course of maximizing profit will minimize competition. And when competition is marginalized or eliminated, there will be no motivation to improve or keep a lid on price, ultimately leading to economic disaster.