Why the next update should not relock the non-AT&T iPhone...

[ZaniCWB]

Fact is that Apple has sold 1 million iPhones in 74 days! The iPhone is a marvellous piece of technology (and you can second that if you have tried one). But these last few days they have sold even more mainly because of these reasons:

First (and of course) the $200 rip off takes place on the stage, with the now only version of 8GB.

But definitely there is something else:

In my opinion, due to the increasing offer of unlocking methods, iPhone has received a big incentive in sales. Well, an easier activation method pops up every single day, since George Hotz succesful hadware unlock. And now most of them are 100% software based (and GUI based too). It means anyone who have internet access can do it. It is really simple and easy by now!

This is per se encouraging the whole world that does NOT have/want AT&T service to buy an iPhone. The risk of something going bad now is actually pretty low, and if Apple doesn't relock them I bet they will sell the 2nd million in a little less than half of the time they took to reach the 1st million milestone. Write it down, I'm betting 40 days or so.

Just my thoughts...

* And I know they get paid for every AT&T iPhone activation, but do the math, selling iPhones generates by far more profit.

[Sobe]

Fact is that Apple sold 1 million iPhones in 74 days! But these last few days they have sold even more mainly because of these reasons:

First (and of course) the $200 rip off takes place on the stage, with the now only version of 8GB.

But definitely there is something else:

In my opinion, due to the increasing offer of unlocking methods, iPhone has received a big incentive in sales. Well, an easier activation method pops up every single day, since George Hotz succesful hadware unlock. And now most of them are 100% software based (and GUI based too).

Just my thoughts...

Really? Exactly how many have they sold because of unlocks?

Unfettered speculation is fine, but let's label it as such shall we?

[MBHockey]

i'd say maybe 100 phones have been sold because the unlocking methods.

95% of people that have cell phones don't know what unlocking is. There is no way that is a main factor.

[shakastange]

Well I bought one only because of the unlock. If you go around forums and other sites you will see plenty of people have. As far as the original post. I think it will probably break or at least patch the unlock exploits. Apple is in a long term contract with ATT. If bad coding on Apple's part is to blame for a mass movement away from ATT. I'm sure ATT will set their lawyers on Apple.

[ashtnn]

i'd say maybe 100 phones have been sold because the unlocking methods.

95% of people that have cell phones don't know what unlocking is. There is no way that is a main factor.

It can't be as small as 100. Sure it's nothing major, but I think 100 is cutting it a little low.

[aerospace]

100 since you made this board maybe. my best guess would be 5-10 thousand worldwide.

[ZaniCWB]

Well guys, most of you have joined the forum very recently... don't you see? I bet you joined because of the iPhone "wow" effect. It's happening again: Apple is on the news every single day, advertisement for free. And don't be fooled by the "no one knows about the unlocking methods". There are links all over the internet (google for them) from US and non US major magazines, newspapers, blogs etc. I mean good advertisement, get it?

[Sobe]

Well guys, most of you have joined the forum very recently... don't you see? I bet you joined because of the iPhone "wow" effect. It's happening again: Apple is on the news every single day, advertisement for free. And don't be fooled by the "no one knows about the unlocking methods". There are links all over the internet (google for them) from US and non US major magazines, newspapers, blogs etc. I mean good advertisement, get it?

It might be news among the crack/hack/and unlock crowd. I read news religiously and outside of this forum I never see mention of it.

[JBaker122586]

Apple profits far more from their contract with AT&T than they do with hardware sales.
Don't fool yourself.
Even if iPhone production were down to $200, they'd be making a $200 profit from each sale.
If they only make $10 a person from AT&T that's $240, just in the initial 2-year agreement.

[Luigi239]

In all probability, the unlocks will be broken. Why? Because apple signed a exclusitivity agreement with Att, and because of that Att will probably force apple to re-lock it. Re-locking it is also in apples best intrest because as far as I know, they also get a cut of the monthly fee from AT&T. Don't be surprised if when you update your iPhone next week, your unlock doesn't work.

[aerospace]

When the hardware unlock came out it was everywhere in the news. Kid trades iphone for car was all I read for days.

[ZaniCWB]

It might be news among the crack/hack/and unlock crowd. I read news religiously and outside of this forum I never see mention of it.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00717FD3A580C768EDDA10894DF404482

Maybe NY Times will make you google what I said on the previous posts... ;) The iPhone unlock talking is spread all over.

[JBaker122586]

It doesn't matter how much it's spreading.
There are very few people with the perceived savvy/know-how to unlock a cell phone, or even know what unlocking a phone means.
I guarantee there won't be more than 2,000 or so people that buy an iPhone with plans to unlock it.

That couple hundred thousand dollars isn't worth Apple sullying their relationship with AT&T. Apple knows damn well that AT&T is in this agreement for the sole purpose of luring subscribers from other carriers to get an iPhone.

[Sobe]

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00717FD3A580C768EDDA10894DF404482

Maybe NY Times will make you google what I said on the previous posts... ;) The iPhone unlock talking is spread all over.

I didn't say no one reported it, I just said I read news a lot and didn't come across it.

The point being if someone who reads as much news as I do missed the reporting (I found out later on this site), I'm sure many others missed it as well, particularly those who don't even have an iphone.

[ZaniCWB]

In all probability, the unlocks will be broken. Why? Because apple signed a exclusitivity agreement with Att, and because of that Att will probably force apple to re-lock it. Re-locking it is also in apples best intrest because as far as I know, they also get a cut of the monthly fee from AT&T. Don't be surprised if when you update your iPhone next week, your unlock doesn't work.

But from the legal perspective AT&T still has exclusivity. Apple doesn't support other carriers. They have no "good enough" reason to do so.

[aerospace]

While I agree probably a million people know that its technically possible to unlock an iphone I think the percentage of people who think they can unlock an iphone due to the fact that they know nothing about hacking is extremely small.

[ZaniCWB]

Apple profits far more from their contract with AT&T than they do with hardware sales.
Don't fool yourself.
Even if iPhone production were down to $200, they'd be making a $200 profit from each sale.
If they only make $10 a person from AT&T that's $240, just in the initial 2-year agreement.

Ok, but you're assuming they make US$10 a month... and for 2 years in a row. Well, it seems too good to be true. And Apple sells Apple, as always. They sell the name, they sell the brand. Everyone is buying because it is a phone from Apple and not an iPhone from AT&T.

But if they're making US$10 a month (I doubt it anyway) then you got to have a point of view.

[synth3tik]

...or if it was not locked to AT&T the price would be higher. sure it's not subsidized, but AT&T took a big risk that paid off. I think the amount of people who bought an iPhone because they can un-lock it is far less then you think. Plus really what is the point. It seems everyone is using T-Mobile with their unlocked phones. T-Mobile is just as bad if not worse, they use the same towers, and you still have to use EDGE.

I just don't get it.

All phone companies suck, but really AT&T is not that bad. For realz.

[ZaniCWB]

It doesn't matter how much it's spreading.
There are very few people with the perceived savvy/know-how to unlock a cell phone, or even know what unlocking a phone means.
I guarantee there won't be more than 2,000 or so people that buy an iPhone with plans to unlock it.

That couple hundred thousand dollars isn't worth Apple sullying their relationship with AT&T. Apple knows damn well that AT&T is in this agreement for the sole purpose of luring subscribers from other carriers to get an iPhone.

If you search a little bit you will find some guides that have links to the needed software and picture screens of every step. And BTW, as I said before, most of the unlock softwares now are GUI based (Graphical User Interface, which means just click a button and let the magic begin). How hard is that?

[Sobe]

...or if it was not locked to AT&T the price would be higher. sure it's not subsidized, but AT&T took a big risk that paid off. I think the amount of people who bought an iPhone because they can un-lock it is far less then you think. Plus really what is the point. It seems everyone is using T-Mobile with their unlocked phones. T-Mobile is just as bad if not worse, they use the same towers, and you still have to use EDGE.

I just don't get it.

All phone companies suck, but really AT&T is not that bad. For realz.

If Apple is making money from AT&T off iPhone use (and I think it's pretty settled that they are), then the phone is subsidized. It's just subsidized differently than we are used to.

More of a backend by the manufacturer subsidy rather than a reduced price at the time of purchase.

If Apple were getting nothing from AT&T, surely the sale price would be higher.

[ppk287]

i'd say maybe 100 phones have been sold because the unlocking methods.

95% of people that have cell phones don't know what unlocking is. There is no way that is a main factor.Where do you base your figures on?

Make that top figure at least 101! :)

[JBaker122586]

It doesn't matter how hard it is. It's the PERCEPTION of how hard it is that matters.

Common people don't know a thing about "hacking"... it worries them more than anything else. They don't know what unlocking a cell phone means.
Trust me, this unlock ability is not increasing sales by any significant amount.

[marioman38]

To help out the OP i must say I am buying an iPhone late sep/ early oct so I can run on T-Mobile w/ Prepaid cards. I wouln't even consider an iPhone if it weren't for this.

[snook911]

I'm sorry but i dont get it. If you had an unlocked iphone why would you update the phone at all. Just keep the old firmware and keep using you phone.

[aerospace]

I'm sorry but i dont get it. If you had an unlocked iphone why would you update the phone at all. Just keep the old firmware and keep using you phone.

in order to sync your phone apple could make you update your version of itunes &/or your firmware. if you ever want to add anything you may have no choice but to update.

[ventro]

Apple should be happy that people are unlocking their device to use it on other carriers. So what if their revenue stream from ATT is taken away? People are buying their device because they like the device, but not the carrier. The only forces trying to re-lock the phone and lock unlockers from their devices. should be from ATT, not from Cupertino.

For every customer they re-lock, that's a customer that's going to be seriously pissed at Apple - their revolutionary device has started to fit into their daily lives, and all of a sudden it's a useless brick. And, seeing as Apple sees their portable devices as a gateway drug into the world of Mac, their anger is a very bad thing.

[pdpfilms]

Apple should be happy that people are unlocking their device to use it on other carriers. So what if their revenue stream from ATT is taken away? People are buying their device because they like the device, but not the carrier. The only forces trying to re-lock the phone and lock unlockers from their devices. should be from ATT, not from Cupertino.

For every customer they re-lock, that's a customer that's going to be seriously pissed at Apple - their revolutionary device has started to fit into their daily lives, and all of a sudden it's a useless brick. And, seeing as Apple sees their portable devices as a gateway drug into the world of Mac, their anger is a very bad thing.
I'm sorry to say, but business (even for Apple) has largely to due with profit, and not necessarily being nice. If Apple is nice and anstds by doing nothing, they're likely to be severed and sued by AT&T, which is currently a huge moneymaker for them.

I wish they wouldn't (I've got a T-Mobile unlocked iPhone), but I'm sure they will.

[JoJoCal19]

Yea but isnt it ILLEGAL for Apple to just re-lock the iPhone? It was my understanding that the law says people are allowed to unlock their phones to use with any provider.

[Speedracer04]

Apple profits far more from their contract with AT&T than they do with hardware sales.
Don't fool yourself.
Even if iPhone production were down to $200, they'd be making a $200 profit from each sale.
If they only make $10 a person from AT&T that's $240, just in the initial 2-year agreement.

Exactly.

Apple will be trying to break the unlocks. We have started a war between devs and Apple.

Much the same with the PSP:
Patch comes -> workaround, Patch comes -> workaround.

Endless cycle until one gives up, but with a device of this publicity Im guessing neither will give up for anytime soon at all.

[Speedracer04]

Yea but isnt it ILLEGAL for Apple to just re-lock the iPhone? It was my understanding that the law says people are allowed to unlock their phones to use with any provider.

Yes, they are not allowed to keep you from unlocking it on your own...but in no way do they have to make it easy and in no way do they have to allow you to keep it unlocked once you unlocked it. If they update their firmware and it relocks the phone thats up to them...you can just unlock it again and be fine (hopefully).

And if you read the fine print, from ATT. you can only unlock the phone after your contract is up...so after 2 years they will provide you with an unlock code if you ask for it, thats why there is going to be a big debate about the iPhone once the 2 year mark hits.

[question fear]

Yes, they are not allowed to keep you from unlocking it on your own...but in no way do they have to make it easy and in no way do they have to allow you to keep it unlocked once you unlocked it. If they update their firmware and it relocks the phone thats up to them...you can just unlock it again and be fine (hopefully).

Exactly. They can't release an update for the sole purpose of relocking the phone. But if they can prove they needed to patch/update some other aspect of the phone that the unlock HAPPENED to exploit or use, it's not Apple's obligation to avoid breaking the unlock. IIRC, none of the workarounds for activation have been broken by firmware updates yet either, so there's some hope.

As I've said on other threads; they might not be looking for ways to relock, but they certainly are not reverse engineering any updates to avoid it either.

And I think the crack/hack community makes up a small percentage of their sales. We forget because everyone here reads Macrumors and Hofo etc religiously but most people can't tell GSM from CDMA, let alone unlocking. It's more gravy than substance. Apple doesn't object to the money they get, certainly, but if tomorrow everyone stopped hacking it would probably have a minimal effect overall.

[carfac]

Yea but isnt it ILLEGAL for Apple to just re-lock the iPhone? It was my understanding that the law says people are allowed to unlock their phones to use with any provider.

I think this is a VERY good point. Apple may close the hacker hole, after all, that is a security risk. But I think they cannot lock an unlocked phone, at least legally. I am NOT a lawyer....

As to people buying now that you can unlock, I am one. Now that my wife has played, she wants one, too. My sister wants 3 (her, her husband, my father all on the same t-Mob plan) and is sending them to me today. I have been at work 3 hours- two people said they will do this if I unlock for them. My friend Deb in Sacto will pick one up this week and send me to uLock. That is six for sure, probably more in my close circle in 2 days.

Add to that that the local tMob store took my number to help them out... you thyink tMob is gonna be quite about this? They are NOT under any contract, and will be helping their customers out any way they can.

[Speedracer04]

I think this is a VERY good point. Apple may close the hacker hole, after all, that is a security risk. But I think they cannot lock an unlocked phone, at least legally. I am NOT a lawyer....

As to people buying now that you can unlock, I am one. Now that my wife has played, she wants one, too. My sister wants 3 (her, her husband, my father all on the same t-Mob plan) and is sending them to me today. I have been at work 3 hours- two people said they will do this if I unlock for them. My friend Deb in Sacto will pick one up this week and send me to uLock. That is six for sure, probably more in my close circle in 2 days.

Add to that that the local tMob store took my number to help them out... you thyink tMob is gonna be quite about this? They are NOT under any contract, and will be helping their customers out any way they can.

Read the above 2 posts....like we said, yes it is illegal for them to release an update for the sole purpose to lock the phone, however if they release an update and it just *happens* to break the unlock, your all out of luck, which is not illegal.

[carfac]

Read the above 2 posts....like we said, yes it is illegal for them to release an update for the sole purpose to lock the phone, however if they release an update and it just *happens* to break the unlock, your all out of luck, which is not illegal.

I do not agree. Again, not a lawyer... but I would think I as a consumer would have some sort of recourse if they locked it after I LEGALLY unlocked it. They *MAY* be obligated to unlock my previous unlocked phone. I do not care about the ATT contract, I am not a party to that. I think App will tread carefully... probably closing the uLock hole, but not relocking phones.

It is a VERY interesting point, isn't it? I am not aware of a precedent on this... is anyone?

I am sure minds greater than ours will argue this out, and we are just along for the ride!

[nippyjun]

With the price drop apple probably makes most of their profit off the iphone from the cell carriers that it has contracted with. It is for this reason that in my opinion apple would want the phone to stay locked to get the revenue from the cell carriers.

[pdpfilms]

I do not agree. Again, not a lawyer... but I would think I as a consumer would have some sort of recourse if they locked it after I LEGALLY unlocked it. They *MAY* be obligated to unlock my previous unlocked phone. I do not care about the ATT contract, I am not a party to that. I think App will tread carefully... probably closing the uLock hole, but not relocking phones.

It is a VERY interesting point, isn't it? I am not aware of a precedent on this... is anyone?

I am sure minds greater than ours will argue this out, and we are just along for the ride!
I think the most important thing to consider in this particular occaision is that the unlock is possible only because of a buffer exploit. This is the result of bad coding, an effective bug. Apple has every right to resolve this (it is a security threat as well), and undoubtedly will do so. But next time, if the Dev Team uses a method that doesn't exploit a bug, who know's what the legal recourse is.

[carfac]

I think the most important thing to consider in this particular occaision is that the unlock is possible only because of a buffer exploit. This is the result of bad coding, an effective bug. Apple has every right to resolve this (it is a security threat as well), and undoubtedly will do so.

Right. That is a bug, a bit of bad coding, and, as I have been lead to beleive, a security risk. Apple SHOULD fix that. All this would do is cause hackers to have to find a new way to do it.

BUT... Locking an already unlocked phone is a whole different kettle of fish. Apple would have to ACTIVELY program to target and lock unlocked phones. As we have the legal right to unlock our phones, and to use unlocked phones (I know- this is up for argument, too, but that is my position), I think Apple would be on shaky ground at best if they did this. As they have also said they are neutral on hacks, I think they will probably avoid the hairball that would result from locking unlocked phones. But they WILL close the hole, for sure.

[carfac]

...that in my opinion apple would want the phone to stay locked...

Apple may also want WANT you to ONLY by Apple computers.... doesn't mean it's gonna happen. I am sure, too, they would WANT it to stay locked, but that sort of ignores reality a bit too much, even for Steve Jobs.

[Sobe]

Read the above 2 posts....like we said, yes it is illegal for them to release an update for the sole purpose to lock the phone, however if they release an update and it just *happens* to break the unlock, your all out of luck, which is not illegal.

I would LOVE to see the actual laws you are citing and any case history on point.

[pdpfilms]

BUT... Locking an already unlocked phone is a whole different kettle of fish. Apple would have to ACTIVELY program to target and lock unlocked phones. As we have the legal right to unlock our phones, and to use unlocked phones (I know- this is up for argument, too, but that is my position), I think Apple would be on shaky ground at best if they did this. As they have also said they are neutral on hacks, I think they will probably avoid the hairball that would result from locking unlocked phones. But they WILL close the hole, for sure.

I agree. However Apple will fix the hole, which will break our unlocks. It may not be their primary intent, but it's an unavoidable result.

[carfac]

I agree. However Apple will fix the hole, which will break our unlocks. It may not be their primary intent, but it's an unavoidable result.

Are you sure? I thought the hole just allowed you to DO the unlock... it was the "tunnel" in. I *THOUGHT* the unlock went through that hole to perform the unlock... and the unlock is done on code on the SIM or in the phone separate from the hole used to get in. Thus, if you are already unlocked, you no longer need the "tunnel". So, if the hole is closed, the unlock remains. This was my understanding of the process.

I am also not a hacker. I could be WAY off here with my understanding of the process. Perhaps someone else could shed light on this?

[question fear]

I do not agree. Again, not a lawyer... but I would think I as a consumer would have some sort of recourse if they locked it after I LEGALLY unlocked it. They *MAY* be obligated to unlock my previous unlocked phone. I do not care about the ATT contract, I am not a party to that. I think App will tread carefully... probably closing the uLock hole, but not relocking phones.

It is a VERY interesting point, isn't it? I am not aware of a precedent on this... is anyone?

I am sure minds greater than ours will argue this out, and we are just along for the ride!

The precedent would be any phones sold with legal (manufacturer approved) unlocks vs any others sold without. I am sure there are cases out there somewhere.

I think the most important thing to consider in this particular occaision is that the unlock is possible only because of a buffer exploit. This is the result of bad coding, an effective bug. Apple has every right to resolve this (it is a security threat as well), and undoubtedly will do so. But next time, if the Dev Team uses a method that doesn't exploit a bug, who know's what the legal recourse is.

If that's the case I'd put money that the firmware update breaks the lock.

I would LOVE to see the actual laws you are citing and any case history on point.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlocking#Regulations_on_unlocking), the most important part of that is this:

In the United States the DMCA has been claimed to criminalize unlocking. A exemption however took effect 27 November 2006 allowing unlocking, and will expire in three years[1]. The exemption only applies to the actual unlocking, not to providing an unlocking device or service (emphasis mine)

In other words, Apple's not coming after you for the unlocking but they are not legally obliged to SUPPORT an unlock. Which means if their OFFICIAL support of the iphone conflicts with the unlock they are not required to support it. That's my reading of it at least.

@ Carfac: An unlock changes the software on the phone, not the SIM. So if the software changes, it could change the unlock.

[kdarling]

Heck, my MOTHER, at 85 years old, asked me if I'd heard about the kid unlocking the iPhone... and she doesn't even really know what one is !!

That's how widespread the news was :eek:

[pdpfilms]

Are you sure? I thought the hole just allowed you to DO the unlock... it was the "tunnel" in. I *THOUGHT* the unlock went through that hole to perform the unlock... and the unlock is done on code on the SIM or in the phone separate from the hole used to get in. Thus, if you are already unlocked, you no longer need the "tunnel". So, if the hole is closed, the unlock remains. This was my understanding of the process.

I am also not a hacker. I could be WAY off here with my understanding of the process. Perhaps someone else could shed light on this?
I also am no hacker, and am simply going off what I read on forums around. Doubt I'm any more knowledgable about the process than you.

[carfac]

...In other words, Apple's not coming after you for the unlocking but they are not legally obliged to SUPPORT an unlock. Which means if their OFFICIAL support of the iphone conflicts with the unlock they are not required to support it. That's my reading of it at least.

But, by your SAME quote, I AM allowed to unlock my phone, not for profit- right? If I am legal that way, then APPLE would be breaking my DMCA rights by reversing my unlock, as I have the right to do that (and if you read further in the actual law, they do not have to show me how, but they also cannot prevent me.)

[carfac]

I also am no hacker, and am simply going off what I read on forums around. Doubt I'm any more knowledgable about the process than you.

Agreed- we are both along for the ride!~ ;)

[Speedracer04]

I do not agree. Again, not a lawyer... but I would think I as a consumer would have some sort of recourse if they locked it after I LEGALLY unlocked it. They *MAY* be obligated to unlock my previous unlocked phone. I do not care about the ATT contract, I am not a party to that. I think App will tread carefully... probably closing the uLock hole, but not relocking phones.

It is a VERY interesting point, isn't it? I am not aware of a precedent on this... is anyone?

I am sure minds greater than ours will argue this out, and we are just along for the ride!


Everyone saying that you are legal to unlock your phone is wrong! It is NOT legal. When you buy an iPhone you are agreeing to use the ATT network, which means you are still under contract with ATT. When you sign that contract you agree to be with them for 2 years!

It is only legal to unlock your phone after your 2 year contract is up for any phone!

You got the phone to unlock by using a program the exploited the coding in the iPhone....this is NOT legal.

They cannot purposly relock the iPHone, but if their update makes it so the code exploit does not work, that is not their fault!


In other words, Apple's not coming after you for the unlocking but they are not legally obliged to SUPPORT an unlock. Which means if their OFFICIAL support of the iphone conflicts with the unlock they are not required to support it. That's my reading of it at least.

Exactly.

[question fear]

But, by your SAME quote, I AM allowed to unlock my phone, not for profit- right? If I am legal that way, then APPLE would be breaking my DMCA rights by reversing my unlock, as I have the right to do that (and if you read further in the actual law, they do not have to show me how, but they also cannot prevent me.)

Right, they don't have the right to stop you BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPORT IT EITHER! What I am saying is that they will probably break it but I guarantee you won't find a single line in the release notes that the firmware update is intended to do anything to unlocks.

But if Apple could go to court and explain that the most efficient way to patch the software or to update the firmware happened to break the unlock they are not obligated to rework their firmware to avoid that. Apple is not going to come after anyone, but if the unlock truly uses a security flaw they have every right to patch it, and if it happens to break your unlock it's not their problem.

Likewise, you have the right to re-unlock the phone as much as you'd like. They can't update the phone SOLELY to break the unlock, so as long as firmware updates leave alone whatever software patch/overrun/whatever the unlock uses then you are fine. Does that make more sense?

[plumbingandtech]

* And I know they get paid for every AT&T iPhone activation, but do the math, selling iPhones generates by far more profit.

You do the math and tell us exactly how many phones have been sold because of unlocking.

[MacCurry]

AT&T has said that it expects only 5% of all iPhones to be unlocked, as stated in an article in CNN's business section, this means 50,000 iPhones have been unlocked so far. For the most part, AT&T has a better GSM network than the other GSM carriers in the US. Their billing and customer service may be another issue.

If Apple issues a FW change to re-lock, it must consider that any firmware change could adversely affect another 5% of locked iPhone users. At the same time Apple has to ensure the FW will work with the other different carriers with whom it is partnering in Europe. Is a FW lock worth it?

Lets take a look at some iPhone economics:

1. Apple's profit per iPhone: $200
2. Apple's revenue from AT&T per iPhone: 20% of subscription, typically $16/month for 2 years. This is assumed because AT&T gives 15% discount on non-iPhone subscription to various large corporate customers.
3. Increased sales due to various unlock methods: 5% more. Therefore, the next 1 million sold will result in 50,000 unlocked iPhones. Apple's profit: $10 million - $19.2 million = -$9.2 million.
4. Now if Apple decides to issue a FW lock it could potentially mess up another 50,000 customers which could cost Apple potentially about $10 million.

[carfac]

Everyone saying that you are legal to unlock your phone is wrong! It is NOT legal.

This argument is covered in much greater detail on other posts. Suffice to say that when there is a SPECIFIC EXCLUSION by the governing body (the LoC, I believe) that allows phone unlocking BY NAME, your sentence above will need more than your opinion to sway me.

When you buy an iPhone you are agreeing to use the ATT network, which means you are still under contract with ATT. When you sign that contract you agree to be with them for 2 years!

Funny, when I bought my iPhone (at an ATT store, btw), no contract was given to me to sign as a condition of sale. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a customer of ATT. If I was, yes, I would be covered by their contract. But ATT does not get 2 years of my life.

It is only legal to unlock your phone after you 2 year contract is up at this time for any phone.

Better back that up with some real laws. I can show you the contrary- read the REAL law:

Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, Final Rule (http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.pdf)

(Note: It is even TITLED Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention...!)

You got the phone to unlock by using a program the exploited the coding in the iPhone....this is NOT legal.

I agree- until your final 4 word.

They cannot purposly relock the iPHone, but if their update makes it so the code exploit does not work, that is not their fault!

I agree. Completely.

We just have different reads on the exemption noted above.

[carfac]

Right, they don't have the right to stop you BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPORT IT EITHER! What I am saying is that they will probably break it but I guarantee you won't find a single line in the release notes that the firmware update is intended to do anything to unlocks.

But if Apple could go to court and explain that the most efficient way to patch the software or to update the firmware happened to break the unlock they are not obligated to rework their firmware to avoid that. Apple is not going to come after anyone, but if the unlock truly uses a security flaw they have every right to patch it, and if it happens to break your unlock it's not their problem.

Likewise, you have the right to re-unlock the phone as much as you'd like. They can't update the phone SOLELY to break the unlock, so as long as firmware updates leave alone whatever software patch/overrun/whatever the unlock uses then you are fine. Does that make more sense?

QF:

OK, I get what you are saying. It all comes down to my point above- does the security hole just ALLOW the process of Unlock to proceed, or is it the unlock? If the hole is just the key to get in the door to do other things to do the unlock, then we should be fine. You only need the hole to get in, the unlock exists separately.This is my understanding of how it works.

But if the hole IS the unlock, well, we will have to get another method.

I think we agree...

[Speedracer04]

This argument is covered in much greater detail on other posts. Suffice to say that when there is a SPECIFIC EXCLUSION by the governing body (the LoC, I believe) that allows phone unlocking BY NAME, your sentence above will need more than your opinion to sway me.

ya, lol and half those posts were made by me. Im just trying to make the point that by unlocking (exploiting code) you are breaking apples terms of agreement (correct me if Im wrong)



Funny, when I bought my iPhone (at an ATT store, btw), no contract was given to me to sign as a condition of sale. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a customer of ATT. If I was, yes, I would be covered by their contract. But ATT does not get 2 years of my life.

Ok, you have got me, about no contract at the point of sale. However the first time you use the iPhone without bypassing activation or unlocking, it takes you to the ATT activation screen where there you must sign the contract before using the iPhone.

Better back that up with some real laws. I can show you the contrary- read the REAL law:

Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, Final Rule (http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.pdf)


(Note: It is even TITLED Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention...!)

You may have got me there, I did not read at and may not know the exact specifics.


I agree- until your final 4 word.

Im am almost 100% certain that somwhere in appls terms of agreement it states that by tampering with the firmware or code violates something of theirs

[Sobe]

The precedent would be any phones sold with legal (manufacturer approved) unlocks vs any others sold without. I am sure there are cases out there somewhere.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlocking#Regulations_on_unlocking), the most important part of that is this:

Quote:
In the United States the DMCA has been claimed to criminalize unlocking. A exemption however took effect 27 November 2006 allowing unlocking, and will expire in three years[1]. The exemption only applies to the actual unlocking, not to providing an unlocking device or service (emphasis mine)

In other words, Apple's not coming after you for the unlocking but they are not legally obliged to SUPPORT an unlock. Which means if their OFFICIAL support of the iphone conflicts with the unlock they are not required to support it. That's my reading of it at least.

Have you actually read that exemption? That exemption has to do with providing the public with fair use of copyrighted works.

The purpose of the rulemaking
proceeding conducted by the Register is
to determine whether users of particular
classes of copyrighted works are, or in
the next three years are likely to be,
adversely affected by the prohibition in
their ability to make noninfringing uses
of copyrighted works.

Maybe some judge somewhere made a tortured connection to phones and unlocking them, but if this is all there is, that's a pretty weak branch to stand on.

[ImNoSuperMan]

And I think the crack/hack community makes up a small percentage of their sales. We forget because everyone here reads Macrumors and Hofo etc religiously but most people can't tell GSM from CDMA, let alone unlocking. It's more gravy than substance.

Ahmmm, I dont think that the "over a million" iPhone owners consists of too many people who cant tell GSM from CDMA. People know very well bout iPhone(thanks to Apple marketing) and they also happen to know it`ll work with AT+T only.They know it wont work with TMo.

Now I dont think everyone who wants an iPhone also wants AT+T. I`d estimate not more than 60-70% of all potential iPhone buyers would go with ATT. But that still leaves over 30%(minimum) interested buyers who already know all bout iPhone and dont buy just coz it wont work with TMobile. So IMO apple would have sold over 300000 more iPhones in the same period with the same price tag of 599/499. And I m talking bout US only. Double the total sales if you consider potential buyers for a smuggled iPhone all over the world.

It`s been only bout a week since iPhone was unlocked and I already see it available in grey markets in New Delhi,India. And though it costs over 650USD here it still is one of the cheaper smartphones. You`d find every other person carrying a mobile costing over 800$.

So my calculation says Apple can very easily sell over 100000 iPhones per month in India. BTW I wouldnt be surprised if I m proved completely wrong and Apple sells way way more than this estimate. And I m talkin bout India only. There happens to be 194 countries in the world. So the potential buyers for such unlocked iphone worldwide will be way way more than they are in US. So dont just say that unlocking the iPhone aint going to increase iPhone`s sale. It will atleast double it. Not 5% like ATT said.

[Sobe]

Ahmmm, I dont think that the "over a million" iPhone owners consists of too many people who cant tell GSM from CDMA. People know very well bout iPhone(thanks to Apple marketing) and they also happen to know it`ll work with AT+T only.They know it wont work with TMo.

Now I dont think everyone who wants an iPhone also wants AT+T. I`d estimate not more than 60-70% of all potential iPhone buyers would go with ATT. But that still leaves over 30%(minimum) interested buyers who already know all bout iPhone and dont buy just coz it wont work with TMobile. So IMO apple would have sold over 300000 more iPhones in the same period with the same price tag of 599/499. And I m talking bout US only. Double the total sales if you consider potential buyers for a smuggled iPhone all over the world.

It`s been only bout a week since iPhone was unlocked and I already see it available in grey markets in New Delhi,India. And though it costs over 650USD here it still is one of the cheaper smartphones. You`d find every other person carrying a mobile costing over 800$.

So my calculation says Apple can very easily sell over 100000 iPhones per month in India. BTW I wouldnt be surprised if I m proved completely wrong and Apple sells way way more than this estimate. And I m talkin bout India only. There happens to be 194 countries in the world. So the potential buyers for such unlocked iphone worldwide will be way way more than they are in US. So dont just say that unlocking the iPhone aint going to increase iPhone`s sale. It will atleast double it. Not 5% like ATT said.

Let's assume that your guesstimations are correct.

If it is that obvious, then why didn't Apple just sell unlocked phones to the world?

I have a hard time believing that they would dismiss these sales if it would amount to a doubling of sales.

[ZaniCWB]

So my calculation says Apple can very easily sell over 100000 iPhones per month in India. BTW I wouldnt be surprised if I m proved completely wrong and Apple sells way way more than this estimate. And I m talkin bout India only. There happens to be 194 countries in the world. So the potential buyers for such unlocked iphone worldwide will be way way more than they are in US. So dont just say that unlocking the iPhone aint going to increase iPhone`s sale. It will atleast double it. Not 5% like ATT said.

Thanks God someone got to do the right math. I lived in US for more than 2 years guys and I can tell you the problem is that north americans believe THEY ARE the whole world.

Hey, do you know that there are another 5 continents (yeah, shocking right? But it is true... google for the 411)? And more than 6 billion people live in the world? So it's not just about America... there's a whole world buying the iPhone. And yes, increased 5%, but that's in US. In a bigger picture (I mean the whole world) this number would be way bigger.

I'm glad someone got the point, I was close to giving up.

[toomer]

The way I see it ...

1) Under the current "exceptions" to the DMCA -- the DMCA can not be used as legal grounds (for the next 2+ years, at least) to go after someone who has unlocked their phone to use on another carrier. This is actually a very different statement to make than to say "I have the legal right to unlock..."

2) The DMCA clauses that have been suspended, make no inference one way or the other to the subject of "relocking". They're really quite simple and clear - you can't be sued (for now) for unlocking your phone. Period. Inferring that an "inverse" scenario ("Well, if it is legal for me to unlock, then it is ILLEGAL for a carrier/manufacturer to relock!") is faulty logic, at best.

3) Apple is under no obligation, whatsoever, to provide "updates" to a phone. And if they do choose to provide "updates" - it is up to you whether you accept them or not. If you accept them, in a click-through Terms of Service agreement somewhere, I'm sure Apple will bury all sorts of legalese to protect themselves. So, if you don't want to risk the possibility of your phone getting re-locked? Then you don't get updates.

The posture of "I want all the updates, and you had better not re-lock my phone in the process, Apple!" is understandable from a personal point of view, but ludicrous from a business standpoint and would never hold up in court. Apple is under no obligation to make sure that software updates that they provide, free of charge, don't impact some custom modification you've done to your phone.

[toomer]

Thanks God someone got to do the right math. I lived in US for more than 2 years guys and I can tell you the problem is that north americans believe THEY ARE the whole world.

Hey, do you know that there are another 5 continents (yeah, shocking right? But it is true... google for the 411)?

Instead of taking cheap pot-shots at all us dumb Americans, you'd do well to take a bit of your own advice and read up on how many continents there actually are on this planet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents

So that makes 6 other continents, besides North America. Not 5.

(and before you ask, yes there actually is GSM coverage in Antarctica)

[ldhilljr]

in order to sync your phone apple could make you update your version of itunes &/or your firmware. if you ever want to add anything you may have no choice but to update.

Not true. You can always keep running your present version of iTunes, which will always still sync with your current version of iPhone.

You (as the user) don't HAVE to update either one.

To "re-lock" the phone, Apple would need to offer enough of an incentive (in the form of new apps or services) that would make someone want to re-lock their phone by agreeing to an update. I can't quite think of what such an incentive would be, though.

[Sobe]

Thanks God someone got to do the right math. I lived in US for more than 2 years guys and I can tell you the problem is that north americans believe THEY ARE the whole world.

Hey, do you know that there are another 5 continents (yeah, shocking right? But it is true... google for the 411)? And more than 6 billion people live in the world? So it's not just about America... there's a whole world buying the iPhone. And yes, increased 5%, but that's in US. In a bigger picture (I mean the whole world) this number would be way bigger.

I'm glad someone got the point, I was close to giving up.

Probably because in many ways, we ARE the world:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg/800px-Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg

[ldhilljr]

And as a follow up to some earlier posts:

1. Although the DMCA exemption probably prevents Apple or ATT from taking action against me for unlocking my iPhone, I would tend to agree that the DMCA exemption does not REQUIRE that Apple or ATT actually support unlocking the iPhone. Which simply means that if there is an update that would re-lock the iPhone, it's my choice whether to accept the update and re-locking or pass on the update and stay unlocked.

2. Terms of Service. I actually read through a bunch of the terms of service but saw nothing that required me to use the iPhone on ATT's network. And I certainly never clicked or accepted anything (during my faux-activation or otherwise) that said I agreed to use my iPhone on ATT. So again, the idea that I have or am doing something illegal (and let's face it, we're talking civil liability not criminal liability here) doesn't appear to hold water.

3. Practicality. Although alot of people reading these posts have either unlocked or are thinking about unlocking their iPhone, I agree that most people's eyes glaze over when they hear the words "cell phone lock." Heck, most people never realize that the cell phone they are using is locked. So, the idea that Apple or ATT are going to start a new land war in Asia to re-lock everyone's iPhone is probably not a realistic one.

[Sobe]

And as a follow up to some earlier posts:

1. Although the DMCA exemption probably prevents Apple or ATT from taking action against me for unlocking my iPhone, I would tend to agree that the DMCA exemption does not REQUIRE that Apple or ATT actually support unlocking the iPhone. Which simply means that if there is an update that would re-lock the iPhone, it's my choice whether to accept the update and re-locking or pass on the update and stay unlocked.

2. Terms of Service. I actually read through a bunch of the terms of service but saw nothing that required me to use the iPhone on ATT's network. And I certainly never clicked or accepted anything (during my faux-activation or otherwise) that said I agreed to use my iPhone on ATT. So again, the idea that I have or am doing something illegal (and let's face it, we're talking civil liability not criminal liability here) doesn't appear to hold water.

3. Practicality. Although alot of people reading these posts have either unlocked or are thinking about unlocking their iPhone, I agree that most people's eyes glaze over when they hear the words "cell phone lock." Heck, most people never realize that the cell phone they are using is locked. So, the idea that Apple or ATT are going to start a new land war in Asia to re-lock everyone's iPhone is probably not a realistic one.

I agree with you for the most part. I would speculate that the most likely scenario is that as they add functionality and fix things, it will "break" unlocking in the process without directly targeting it.

[ZaniCWB]

Instead of taking cheap pot-shots at all us dumb Americans, you'd do well to take a bit of your own advice and read up on how many continents there actually are on this planet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents

So that makes 6 other continents, besides North America. Not 5.

(and before you ask, yes there actually is GSM coverage in Antarctica)

Well, at least you could have read the link you posted:

The 6-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, Iran and some other parts of Europe; this model may be taught to include only the 5 inhabited continents (excluding Antarctica).

There are actually many ways of distinguishing the continents.

See, that is my point: I'm NOT criticizing americans and don't forget I'm one of them ;) But you're so used to fast-food, fast this, fast that... if there was an option of "already chewed fast-food so it would be even faster" I bet you would try it.

Nothing personal at all, but I've used computer my whole life and it's so real that these kind of forums show that: how many times do you see the same question posted again and again and again... it's an infinite loop! (hey, isn't it Apple's address?). If you go other countries forums this is no common behavior. Anyway, this forum ROCKS since ever!

[ldhilljr]

I agree with you for the most part. I would speculate that the most likely scenario is that as they add functionality and fix things, it will "break" unlocking in the process without directly targeting it.

I have no doubt that if Apple releases an update that re-locks the iPhone, they will say not a blessed word about it, whether they intentionally are seeking that result or otherwise. But most people who have invested the time and energy to unlock their own iPhone probably (and I'm sure there will be plenty of examples to prove me wrong) are smart enough to know not to update their iTunes or iPhone until someone has confirmed that the iPhone will still remain unlocked, or until a new unlocking solution has been devised.

I'm still very interested to see how practical it will be for Apple to close the loopholes that have been discovered that allow for the iPhone to be jailbroken and for the baseband to be flashed so that the unlock "state" can be imposed on the phone. It's kind of like watching a cat and mouse, and wondering if the mouse has a chance of getting away.

[matticus008]

But, by your SAME quote, I AM allowed to unlock my phone, not for profit- right? If I am legal that way, then APPLE would be breaking my DMCA rights by reversing my unlock
You don't have any "DMCA rights"--you're not the copyright holder. The DMCA merely bars AT&T or Apple from prohibiting the unlocking of cell phones via copyright law.

If unlocking the phone relies on a specific firmware version, then you are only protected as long as you use that firmware version. If you choose to accept future software updates, you assume the risk that any backdoor unlock will fail.
Everyone saying that you are legal to unlock your phone is wrong! It is NOT legal.
Yes, it absolutely is legal. What is not necessarily legal is the creation and distribution of these tools. That does not affect the end user, however.
When you buy an iPhone you are agreeing to use the ATT network, which means you are still under contract with ATT. When you sign that contract you agree to be with them for 2 years!
This has zero relationship to the unlocking. Your contract with AT&T is a separate matter, with separate remedies for breach and termination. If you discontinue your AT&T service, you pay the penalty and move on.
It is only legal to unlock your phone after your 2 year contract is up for any phone!
There is no such requirement unless it is stipulated in your agreement, and in that case it becomes a separate and more complicated issue.

[carfac]

You don't have any "DMCA rights"--you're not the copyright holder. The DMCA merely bars AT&T or Apple from prohibiting the unlocking of cell phones via copyright law.

Correct. My poor choice of words. I have NO rights in this regard, and stand corrected.

But what is your read on Apples ability to "re-lock" an unlocked phone? Do they have the right (or are they protected if) they relock an unlocked phone?

[matticus008]

But what is your read on Apples ability to "re-lock" an unlocked phone? Do they have the right (or are they protected if) they relock an unlocked phone?
Absolutely they can. They have no obligation to honor any hacks or work around unlocks that are based on a specific technique useful on a specific firmware. If they release a firmware update and the unlock method stops working, too bad. It's their phone software and they have the right to do as they please with it.

You're free to continue unlocking the phone as other methods become available, but part of the downside of relying on hackers to do anything is that there is no guarantee it will work in the future.

Simply decline to update the firmware if you don't want to go seven rounds with Apple. You might miss out on new features and improvements, but that's just the way it works.

Traditionally, unlocking a phone requires entering a valid code given by the carrier, matched to your IMEI. The handset will honor that code and continue to be unlocked through firmware updates. The current iPhone does not appear to have that ability, as it uses locking software beyond a simple SIM lock.

[MacCurry]

This is kinda off-topic, but most US-Americans have not travelled beyond the continental US because there is no need to - everything is available. God has blessed the US with good neighbors who are kind and helpful. Therefore, the world starts in Seattle and ends at Miami and no need to know about anyone else. Just imagine if the US had Pakistan, Iran, Syria or North Korea as neighbors. I bet US-Americans would be more informed.

Now back to the topic. China adds 5 million new mobile phone customers a month and India adds over 7 million each month! This trend will continue for the next 5-7 years. If unlocked iPhones are available, these people will get them. My guess is that at $800USD, about 10% of these subscribers would give the iPhone serious consideration. The high end smart phone sales would then be diveded between SE, Nokia and Apple. This would mean very conservatively 400,000 iPhones sold per month in India and China combined!

[Sobe]

This is kinda off-topic, but most US-Americans have not travelled beyond the continental US because there is no need to - everything is available. God has blessed the US with good neighbors who are kind and helpful. Therefore, the world starts in Seattle and ends at Miami and no need to know about anyone else. Just imagine if the US had Pakistan, Iran, Syria or North Korea as neighbors. I bet US-Americans would be more informed.

Now back to the topic. China adds 5 million new mobile phone customers a month and India adds over 7 million each month! This trend will continue for the next 5-7 years. If unlocked iPhones are available, these people will get them. My guess is that at $800USD, about 10% of these subscribers would give the iPhone serious consideration. The high end smart phone sales would then be diveded between SE, Nokia and Apple. This would mean very conservatively 400,000 iPhones sold per month in India and China combined!

Careful with those broad generalizations. Some of us are quite well-traveled, thank you very much. Regardless, the degree to which the US is a multicultural society surely cannot be news to you. I can drive down the road and meet Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians, Koreans and about 100 other nationalities.

Apple can market to India and China without engaging in an argument about unlocking their product, unless it is specifically required to sell your product there.

[MacCurry]

Sobe,

You're in a major east coast suburban area with a very diverse population set. Just go a couple of hundred miles south or west and its a very different story.

Unlocked phones be it Apple or anyone else is the standard in many parts of Asia since the phone seller has nothing to do with the service provider. You buy a pre-paid service or pay as you go until you're tired of the carrier.

[Sobe]

Sobe,

You're in a major east coast suburban area with a very diverse population set. Just go a couple of hundred miles south or west and its a very different story.

Unlocked phones be it Apple or anyone else is the standard in many parts of Asia since the phone seller has nothing to do with the service provider. You buy a pre-paid service or pay as you go until you're tired of the carrier.

Good idea, I've never traveled south or west of here before...:rolleyes:

[MacCurry]

Sobe,

My point here is that many of the fine folks in West Virgina and the corner near Tennesse aren't as well travelled or well-heeled as the folks in DC. Their world is within driving distance to the nearest NASCAR race.

http://landolove.com/random/cletus.jpg

[Sobe]

Sobe,

My point here is that many of the fine folks in West Virgina and the corner near Tennesse aren't as well travelled or well-heeled as the folks in DC. Their world is within driving distance to the nearest NASCAR race.

http://landolove.com/random/cletus.jpg

heh I assure you where I live is not particularly well-heeled.

And many people these days commute from West Virginia to DC or the DC suburbs.

You've got a stereotype and you're hell-bent on shoehorning it into the conversation.

Sure you can find people in the US who don't have a lot of exposure to other cultures if you want to. But let's talk reality -- most people are simply not that isolated and Virgina and WV are having massive amounts of immigration, particularly from mexico and central american countries.

[eddiebrock]

per jobs it sounds like the official policy towards unlocking/hacking is not in its favor, and in fact seems as though their stance is to proactively prevent it.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=19123

"It’s a cat and mouse game. We play it on iPods with DRM. We try to stay ahead. I’m not sure if we are the cat or the mouse. People will try to break in and it’s our job to stop them breaking in."

:(

[carfac]

per jobs it sounds like the official policy towards unlocking/hacking is not in its favor, and in fact seems as though their stance is to proactively prevent it.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=19123

First off, I have a biased position- I use an unlocked phone. But I think there is a difference between DRM and phone locking. It IS illegal to circumvent DRM, and not so to unlock a phone.

I see this similarity- DRM is mandated by Music Publishers, and Locking is mandated (presumably) by ATT.

I still feel that Apple will close current holes that allow unlocking, but my gut feeling (wishful thinking) is that they will not ReLock in the process.

Dave

[ImNoSuperMan]

Let's assume that your guesstimations are correct.

If it is that obvious, then why didn't Apple just sell unlocked phones to the world?

I have a hard time believing that they would dismiss these sales if it would amount to a doubling of sales.

May be they dont want to sell that much. But with over 6 million new connections every month I cant believe Apple cant sell 100000 iPhones/month in India. They might not be able to sell 10000 iPods in India but a phone is a completely different thing. Everybody I know changes his mobile every 4-5 months.

Last night I told my friends that I m getting an iPhone for myself for bout 500$(incl shipping) all five of them jumped on me and asked to get one for them too if I wish to stay alive:o. Two of them didnt even know iPhone`s features except it`s 8GB and manufactured by Apple. And the biggest plus point for them was how cheap it was. No one expected that a phone with such advanced features and this much hype to cost anything less than 1000$. All of them want one. And so do their brothers and friends and friends of their friends. I can sell more than 100 iPhones within family n friends even at 600$. Everybody wants one.

So dont underestimate India as a consumer base for iPhone. And btw no one is going to get it with a contract. Not if it`s available unlocked. Launch it with a contract and no one will buy it even at 400$. Give it unlocked and people still are going to buy it at 700$.

[adamyoshida]

I think that Apple knows the score here. They'll pursue, enough to satisfy AT&T - but I doubt if they'll be all that aggressive.

If I was going to guess, I would guess that we're now up to somewhere in the range of five hundred or so unlocked iPhones just in Vancouver, British Columbia. That probably means something like five thousand in all of Canada.

Add to that the rest of the world - and the rate these things are moving - and I think that 50,000 (AT&T's estimate) is pretty low. At the present rate, with the price cut, I'd guess there will be 100,000 unlocked iPhones worldwide by this time next month.

[Mydel]

Everyone saying that you are legal to unlock your phone is wrong! It is NOT legal. When you buy an iPhone you are agreeing to use the ATT network, which means you are still under contract with ATT. When you sign that contract you agree to be with them for 2 years!

It is only legal to unlock your phone after your 2 year contract is up for any phone!

You got the phone to unlock by using a program the exploited the coding in the iPhone....this is NOT legal.

And where does it say?? I cant find it on my phone....It has to be damm small print

[carfac]

And where does it say?? I cant find it on my phone....It has to be damm small print

Damn you! Its right there on your screen. You accept that every time you swipe your finger to unlock... the EULA is wriiten on that pixel just to the right of "Unlock".