Apple Issues Warning on iPhone Unlocking

[winterspan]

Sorry Chap

Dude..You need a life.

I feel absolutely no sympathy for any person here that purposefully hacked their iPhone fully knowing it could damage it.

If it bricks their phone.They deserve it.I was responding to people that have no idea what this update will do and THEY were attacking Apple.

My attitude may suck for you.Get over it.This is just a discussion forum.


[edit]

and the next time you quote me in order to try and make me look evil please quote the person I was responding to ok?

[/edit]

I was hardly making you look evil and I stand by the intention of my post, however I wrote that earlier and I was really pissed off about something else at the time. (No, not the iPhone announcement ) So i apologize for being a dick about it.
I also don't really feel sorry for the people who will end up with bricked iphones, it sucks but they know the risk. Im more interested in the technical nature of this, to really know if this is FUD or not.

I honestly don't see how they can update the firmware to cause (not intentionally) a permanent catastrophic failure of the device. It just doesn't seem logical that you wouldn't be able to re-flash the EEPROM with the firmware on it with the original virgin firmware.

 

[winterspan]

I have to ask this question because I won't be able to sleep until I do. I have 4 ringtones from itoner on my phone, and since this is a SIM unlock issue, my iPhone will be fine right? I am just wondering if I should get rid of them before I update...

I would hate to end up with a brick because I wanted free ringtones... please don't yell at my stupid question, as I am ignorant of anything having to do with hacking...

Thanks!
Leanne

Yes, it supposedly only has to do with unlocking the phone for a different service provider. No guarantees of course, and if it were ME and MY $499, I would definitely restore EVERYTHING to a virgin state before I did any update considering the risk at stake.

 

[arkitect]

I have a suspicion that no matter what Apple say the engineers have been working very hard to break unlocked iPhones…

Apple only need to do this once to put the fear of god into any potential unlockers… If they can demonstrate that they can "brick" an iPhone if you don't play by their rules — wow. Death Star demonstration anyone? They will also keep jittery AT&T, O2 etc happy…

I am not saying they are right and decent in doing so, just a thought. Apple is fighting for huge financial stakes and Steve is a ruthless guy.

 

[winterspan]

This is too bad, but not very surprising.

I just hope that Apple will get into some sort of conflict with the EU regarding the whole locking / unlocking issue.

The iPhone is a great little device; what a shame that one is forced to use horrible AT&T to have access to it.

Actually, when the deal was announced in the United States, it caused quite a stir in some parts of congress here which is A GREAT THING. Too think the US politicians would finally wake up and start regulating the absolute abuse of the market and anti-competitive practices by these **** telecom companies is amazing! Im sure across the pond the EU will eventually (in the countries that don't already do it now) come down HARD on this type of crap.

You guys have no idea how bad it is with broadband in the US. They've allowed this type of anti-competitive bull**** for year now because all the politicians are busy getting sucked off by the big $$$ telecom lobbyists.
In nearly all average areas of the United states, people are stuck with only one cable company and one DSL company, with each being the incumbent
regional carrier for the area. They have acted to completely deny new entry into the market, and the **** government has even gotten worse over time. they used to at least make the local telephone company lease the "last mile" of their phone lines to third party ISPs who wanted to offer DSL service, but NOPE NOT ANYMORE! Thanks CONGRESS -- you stupid PIGS!

 

[smythey]

sounds like a scare tactic to me

Agreed - As several people have mentioned before, Apple will be under pressure from AT&T to stop all these cheeky monkeys unlocking their phones and bypassing giving AT&T any love.

 

[PDE]

I have a suspicion that no matter what Apple say the engineers have been working very hard to break unlocked iPhones…

Apple only need to do this once to put the fear of god into any potential unlockers… If they can demonstrate that they can "brick" an iPhone if you don't play by their rules — wow. Death Star demonstration anyone? They will also keep jittery AT&T, O2 etc happy…

I am not saying they are right and decent in doing so, just a thought. Apple is fighting for huge financial stakes and Steve is a ruthless guy.

If you're right, Apple is in for a very painful public relations fiasco,ESPECIALLY in Europe. People have been unlocking phones for years and it's been generally considered totally safe and harmless. Just google phone unlocking codes and check out the 9 million hits it produces. If Apple would deliberately brick its customers' iphones, regardless of their unlocked status, it will face harsh scrutiny in the media and legally. People don't like being locked to a network, but they like even less being bullied by big corporations. It'll be interesting, if nothing else.


Oh, and if Apple makes it impossible to break into the next firmware, it means that the unlockable iphones will become increasingly desirable on the market...feature-frozen and all.

 

[arkitect]

If you're right, Apple is in for a very painful public relations fiasco,ESPECIALLY in Europe. People have been unlocking phones for years and it's been generally considered totally safe and harmless.People don't like being locked to a network, but they like even less being bullied by big corporations.

Oh, I agree with what you're saying. But just bear in mind Apple get paid a substantial chunk of change for every locked iPhone used…

And Apple would always have recourse to their "fine print"…

 

[Jarcrew]

Not surprised in the slightest, and quite frankly it's good enough for 'em. Everyone threw down their $600 or $400 or whatever and they knew they were getting a unit that Apple didn't want people breaking into - they said so publicly a number of times before the iPhone dropped.

I've no more sympathy for people whose iPhones will be bricked than those who run into trouble trying to fit their Mac Mini into a Millennium Falcon toy and then go running to Apple because Chewy ate their RAM. It's not covered under warranty and it doesn't even fall within the Grand Canyon-sized boundaries of common sense.

 

[winterspan]

The main difference with Europe, as far I’m able to judge this, is the reason WHY phones are locked. When you sign-up with a telco over here, your locked phone is virtually free. Only the newest and latest models require you to pay extra. Of course ‘free’ means you don’t have to pay up front. You’ll pay it back through your monthly plan somehow. This would mean an 8 GB iPhone, with a one year contract, would set me back somewhere in the region of 85 Euros with a good monthly plan. That makes the locking somewhat more bearable, as you don’t have to pay the iPhone’s full price. And telcos are legally bound to supply you with the unlocking code after the contract ends. So yes, when the iPhone emerges in my country early next year I will get one for sure. I’ll stick with my current telco because the tariffs are fair and after one year I’m free to do with it whatever I like. The only thing that will spoil this if Apple are allowed to stick with the ‘one exclusive telco’ scheme. As the things are selling like hot cakes it seems Apple can do as they please anyway, there’s a great imbalance between supply and demand.

oh no fair -- I still haven't been to the Netherlands yet. Almost made it last trip to Europe. Anyways, I totally understand where you Europeans are coming from with the free phone with a contract. In America, You also see that except instead of getting a free €700+$700 Nokia phone with a 12-18 month contract, we usually get like $50-$100 off with a 12-month contract and $100-$200 off with a 24-month contact. Again, this screwjob we get over here is from the total lack of competitiveness in the telecom industry cause by lax government regulation. So for most people here, not getting any $$ off on the iPhone for signing AT&T's 24-month contact was not that big of deal. However, in your country and Germany/France/UK/Everywhere else in europe, I can see that becoming a MAJOR ISSUE once the fanboys buy up the first 1/4 million phones or so. According to the European launches last week, they are charging FULL PRICE for the phone WITH the long contract.
Whats your reaction/opinion on this? do you think the iPhone will bomb in Europe with that ridiculous no-discount contract scheme coupled with the lack of 3G, bad camera, etc. I know you guys are about 2-3 years ahead of the states in phone features.

 

[PDE]

Actually, when the deal was announced in the United States, it caused quite a stir in some parts of congress here which is A GREAT THING. Too think the US politicians would finally wake up and start regulating the absolute abuse of the market and anti-competitive practices by these **** telecom companies is amazing! Im sure across the pond the EU will eventually (in the countries that don't already do it now) come down HARD on this type of crap.

You guys have no idea how bad it is with broadband in the US. They've allowed this type of anti-competitive bull**** for year now because all the politicians are busy getting sucked off by the big $$$ telecom lobbyists.
In nearly all average areas of the United states, people are stuck with only one cable company and one DSL company, with each being the incumbent
regional carrier for the area. They have acted to completely deny new entry into the market, and the **** government has even gotten worse over time. they used to at least make the local telephone company lease the "last mile" of their phone lines to third party ISPs who wanted to offer DSL service, but NOPE NOT ANYMORE! Thanks CONGRESS -- you stupid PIGS!

Totally agreed. There was a very interesting article in the Economist this week about how the EU is essentially becoming the world regulator in all areas. Thank God for that! Laws there are more proactively protective of consumers and don't give company's the benefit of the doubt the way they do in the U.S.. Many American businesses are adapting to the toughest regulations in their industries - those of the EU - because it makes economic sense. But they're also pushing for more stringent regulation in the U.S. so that there is a level playing field at home among those who comply with stricter EU regulations and those who don't. Interesting read.

The broadband thing: yeah, what nonsense it is and the only people being screwed over are the customers. As usual.

 

[Carniphage]

Printers and Ink. Razors and Blades. Phones and Carriers.

This is an interesting discussion.

The car only cost $500, but you have to buy our gas for $99.99 a gallon. "Usage of third party gasoline violates the EULA and entitles us to kill your kids."

When you buy a printer from Epson. Is it reasonable that the force you to use their own brand of ink? Should using 3rd party ink be illegal?

Razor manufacturers discovered a long time ago, they could sell razors at a loss if they knew they could make the money back selling blades.

It's one way of doing business, but it's not in the customers best interests. It creates a distorted market where you get a bargain on the item, but you are screwed on the after-market support. In some countries, it is illegal. In all countries it is immoral.

I don't think Apple had a choice. They had to pick a network partner. But when you sleep with dogs, you are gonna catch fleas.

I hope that in the long term, Apple end up selling a telephone device to the customer, at the face value and without locks. And if carriers want to pay bribes to new customers, that should be up to them.


C.

 

[winterspan]

Totally agreed. There was a very interesting article in the Economist this week about how the EU is essentially becoming the world regulator in all areas. Thank God for that! Laws there are more proactively protective of consumers and don't give company's the benefit of the doubt the way they do in the U.S.. Many American businesses are adapting to the toughest regulations in their industries - those of the EU - because it makes economic sense. But they're also pushing for more stringent regulation in the U.S. so that there is a level playing field at home among those who comply with stricter EU regulations and those who don't. Interesting read.

The broadband thing: yeah, what nonsense it is and the only people being screwed over are the customers. As usual.

I will definitely have to check that out-- is it the economist with the black gun on the front (just got it today i think)? I completely agree we'd be so much better off with the EU consumer and business laws. Each day more companies continue to screw us, the consumer, in this country.
I'm so sick of living in the land of unbridled capitalism with no protections in place for the consumer.
Except of course when a silhouetted breast on TV offends the puritan sensibilities of the Christian evangelicals. Then of course we have EVERY GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND ALL THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN UP IN ARMS TO CHANGE LEGISLATION! All in the name of "protecting us". What a crock of S**t.
At one time i had become so dispirited by the corrupt, special-interests-bough-and-paid-for politicians in this country that I really looked into moving. I mean with the pathetic state of basic needs such as healthcare (30% with no insurance. three times spent per capita on healthcare and still most people don't get what they need) , higher education grants and loans, the real estate market, the homeless and mental health epidemic, and everything else. It feels somedays like "the empire" is falling. At least the bottom 90% of the pyramid is cracking while the top keeps taking all the resources and profits.

I have since renewed my determination to fight for this country and get it back on track.

 

[winterspan]

If you're right, Apple is in for a very painful public relations fiasco,ESPECIALLY in Europe. People have been unlocking phones for years and it's been generally considered totally safe and harmless. Just google phone unlocking codes and check out the 9 million hits it produces. If Apple would deliberately brick its customers' iphones, regardless of their unlocked status, it will face harsh scrutiny in the media and legally. People don't like being locked to a network, but they like even less being bullied by big corporations. It'll be interesting, if nothing else.


Oh, and if Apple makes it impossible to break into the next firmware, it means that the unlockable iphones will become increasingly desirable on the market...feature-frozen and all.

interesting VERY high-risk endeavor I see a few people taking on. Buying unlocked phones on ebay which now are probably much lower in value than they were yesterday. Buy at a bargain, then when the new update is shown unhackable (at least for a good while), sell the ONLY remaining unlocked iphones for a fortune!

 

[Sobe]

they used to at least make the local telephone company lease the "last mile" of their phone lines to third party ISPs who wanted to offer DSL service, but NOPE NOT ANYMORE! Thanks CONGRESS -- you stupid PIGS!

Maybe those third party ISPs should invest some money and lay their own cable instead of asking the government to legislate them into competitiveness.

Totally agreed. There was a very interesting article in the Economist this week about how the EU is essentially becoming the world regulator in all areas. Thank God for that! Laws there are more proactively protective of consumers and don't give company's the benefit of the doubt the way they do in the U.S.. Many American businesses are adapting to the toughest regulations in their industries - those of the EU - because it makes economic sense. But they're also pushing for more stringent regulation in the U.S. so that there is a level playing field at home among those who comply with stricter EU regulations and those who don't. Interesting read.

The broadband thing: yeah, what nonsense it is and the only people being screwed over are the customers. As usual.

Economist article you mentioned, for your pleasure.

I liked this bit:

Some Eurocrats suggest that the philosophical gap reflects the American constitutional tradition that everything is allowed unless it is forbidden, against the Napoleonic tradition codifying what the state allows and banning everything else.

I'll take the former over the latter.

 

[winterspan]

This is an interesting discussion.

The car only cost $500, but you have to buy our gas for $99.99 a gallon. "Usage of third party gasoline violates the EULA and entitles us to kill your kids."

When you buy a printer from Epson. Is it reasonable that the force you to use their own brand of ink? Should using 3rd party ink be illegal?

Razor manufacturers discovered a long time ago, they could sell razors at a loss if they knew they could make the money back selling blades.

It's one way of doing business, but it's not in the customers best interests. It creates a distorted market where you get a bargain on the item, but you are screwed on the after-market support. In some countries, it is illegal. In all countries it is immoral.

I don't think Apple had a choice. They had to pick a network partner. But when you sleep with dogs, you are gonna catch fleas.

I hope that in the long term, Apple end up selling a telephone device to the customer, at the face value and without locks. And if carriers want to pay bribes to new customers, that should be up to them.
C.

I agree with everything you said except for:
"I dont think they had a choice. They had to pick a network partner"

do you mean because of the voicemail? I still think they would have made nearly as much money releasing the phone SIM unlocked instead of partnering up with service providers. I bet if they would have released it SIM free with no contract, we'd see MASSIVE adoption throughout the world. They wouldn't be able to make enough of them to fulfill demand for MONTHS maybe YEARS!

 

[Sobe]

I agree with everything you said except for:
"I dont think they had a choice. They had to pick a network partner"

do you mean because of the voicemail? I still think they would have made nearly as much money releasing the phone SIM unlocked instead of partnering up with service providers. I bet if they would have released it SIM free with no contract, we'd see MASSIVE adoption throughout the world. They wouldn't be able to make enough of them to fulfill demand for MONTHS maybe YEARS!

I've commented on that very fact before, and it begs the question:

If your observation is true, then why did they release the phone the way they did?

 

[winterspan]

Maybe those third party ISPs should invest some money and lay their own cable instead of asking the government to legislate them into competitiveness.

Thats the whole point, they AREN'T ALLOWED TO LAY THEIR OWN CABLE!!!!
You can't regulate only parts of something and then not others. Its this type of schizophrenia of telecom regulation that is the problem. Its the same argument why AT&T got broken up in the first place. They got contracts with the government to lay the first cables, then they dominated the entire industry for the next 50 years. No one could compete because they wouldn't share the cables and by share I mean charge a reasonable price for wholesale access and yet the government wouldn't allow other companies to dig up the ground again. AT&T even used to make you use only specific PHONES they sold for a huge markup. Each time the government would step in and fix the problem like they did with the 3rd party phone problem way back then, and then again with the total breakup of AT&T, and then later with the legislation that allowed long distance companies to offer service over "their" lines.

If you do some more research I'm sure you will agree that regulation of essential services and utilities offers great benefits for the consumers and SHOULD be required since the government (which is supposed to be FOR the people BY the people) often regulates who can start what service or controls access to resources like coaxial/POTS/fiber buildouts, electromagnetic spectrum licensing, etc etc

 

[spydr]

Apple really seems to have a tight rope to walk here, trying to keep both sides happy. I wonder how much it cost AT&T for setting up all that iPhone exclusives (I sure love it!) and how much Apple needs that kickback from AT&T to break even with their investments in this new direction. Although at some point, I do hope they choose to lean on our side, and sell the phone just like the iPod and it'd be upto the network to woo the consumer with whatever rebates and offers they like. If Google's stance on the 700 MHz auction got ground rules rewritten in this country to make locking phones to network ILLEGAL, perhaps, we would have a chance?

 

[Sobe]

Thats the whole point, they AREN'T ALLOWED TO LAY THEIR OWN CABLE!!!!
You can't regulate only parts of something and then not others. Its this type of schizophrenia of telecom regulation that is the problem. Its the same argument why AT&T got broken up in the first place. They got contracts with the government to lay the first cables, then they dominated the entire industry for the next 50 years. No one could compete because they wouldn't share the cables and by share I mean charge a reasonable price for wholesale access and yet the government wouldn't allow other companies to dig up the ground again. AT&T even used to make you use only specific PHONES they sold for a huge markup. Each time the government would step in and fix the problem like they did with the 3rd party phone problem way back then, and then again with the total breakup of AT&T, and then later with the legislation that allowed long distance companies to offer service over "their" lines.

If you do some more research I'm sure you will agree that regulation of essential services and utilities offers great benefits for the consumers and SHOULD be required since the government (which is supposed to be FOR the people BY the people) often regulates who can start what service or controls access to resources like coaxial/POTS/fiber buildouts, electromagnetic spectrum licensing, etc etc

The answer isn't to demand that they share what they invested in. Just let people lay what they need.

The problem here is not regulation, it's over-regulation -- allowing them to have a monopoly on cable.

Open it up and let people invest or not as they see fit.

Requiring people to let competitors use their lines is a false choice.

 

[shakastange]

To those people claiming phone unlocking will deny Apple some revenue are really something. It has been clearly stated that Apple earns revenue on new AT&T subscribers purchasing the iPhone. It would be rather dumb on ATT's part if they paid Apple for those customers already on the ATT network who moved to the iPhone.

Many people unlocking the iPhone would never have purchased the phone if the unlock did not exist. In fact they are bringing extra money to Apple. If the phone were in short supply and ATT customers were being denied access to the phone, then you could argue that Apple is losing that profit sharing revenue.

Can you imagine purchasing a TV from Sony and having your TV locked to 1 cable company when it is perfectly capable of receiving service from any number of companies? Or if your land line phone were tied to one service provider and having to switch would mean purchasing a new phone and having a new POTS line installed. Its only a matter of time before some lawmaker gets really pissed off on that and makes some noise. But then again, big business owns the government.

 

[winterspan]

I've commented on that very fact before, and it begs the question:

If your observation is true, then why did they release the phone the way they did?

I'm not going to PRETEND that I know anything close to what Apple's research / market / financial analysts know, but It seems intuitive for the response thats been heard from the global community, especially when they do something as stupid as sell the phone for full price with a contract (and no 3G) in Europe. How is that going to sell phones?

Other than the intuitive nature of the issue and the observations of the enthusiast community on a few forum websites, the only other argument would be that most companies strive to get market share (long term profit) over immediate profit from doing something like Apple is doing.

Assuming the iphone is truly as great as everyone seems to think it is, and they sold a huge volume of iPhones if they were unencumbered by a service provider lock / long contact requirement, It would logically follow that the next generation would do even better in sales volume and that trend would continue. At that point, you own the customers, and could maybe do some sort of limited "special new generation iphone" that is exclusive to a certain provider for some period of time or something. I think they would certainly do much better than they are going to do with the amount of backlash they will be seeing especially outside the USA. Also In the US, I just don't see that many people will be willing to change providers to *** AT&T just to have an iphone. I just dont see it. And now with the touch?? even less reason to pull the trigger.

 

[peharri]

I've been looking into replacing my iPod, and a lot of people have been saying I should go the iPhone route (even if it wouldn't end up being my primary phone), poo-pooing my concern that it's only available locked to a network I don't find usable with the argument that it can be unlocked anyway.

This kind of news actually goes beyond what I expected from Apple. I expected future updates to remove the unlocking, I didn't expect them to actually brick phones that were unlocked.

What a bizarre situation Apple has gotten itself into, purely so it can advertise the iPhone as being $100 less than it is (the $100 being about the average of the two years of kickbacks from AT&T), and so it can definitely ensure a feature useful to about 0.5% of the population, Visual Voicemail, works on the iPhone. Bricking phones to placate their entirely unnecessary partners. Great.

Here's hoping future iPod Touch's will support Bluetooth and Internet access over Bluetooth. Or else that Wifi will start to become a common feature of new cell phones.

 

[GoodWatch]

Whats your reaction/opinion on this? do you think the iPhone will bomb in Europe with that ridiculous no-discount contract scheme coupled with the lack of 3G, bad camera, etc. I know you guys are about 2-3 years ahead of the states in phone features.

Before you start wondering if the US iPhone deal is a rip-off, just take a look at these iMac prices and cry together with me:

iMac, 20”, 2,4 GHz., 1 GB RAM, 320 GB hard disk, in Apple stores, all prices converted to Euro, yesterday’s rates;

NL €1449
DE €1449
ES €1399 = - 50
UK €1263 = - 186
NZ €1118 = - 331
US €990 = - 459

Differences in VAT tariffs were not taken into account and my assumption is, iMacs for Europe are assembled in Ireland.

As for the iPhone pricing, the cheapest with an O2 (UK) contract is 35 pounds, seems fair to me. Of course one has to realise that the buying potential in The Netherlands, where everyone seems to have 2 GSM phones already, is likely to be restricted to a relatively small group that is even willing to pay over list! I don’t see Apple shipping 1 million iPhones in the first month here. So will it bomb? I depends on the goals set by Apple. All ‘n’ all, Europe as a whole is a big market and should be treated as one market, not a bunch of independent countries. In that respect, it will not bomb.

As for the advanced features, again, it depends what you want from them. I’m happy with 4 things: good, nationwide coverage, clear speech capabilities, syncing with my corporate Lotus Notes and e-mail. All the rest, bar MP3 playing capabilities, is of minor interest to me, even a camera.

 

[yetanotherdave]

I can't believe the amount of people who seem to think that only AT&T are bothered by unlocked phones. They seem to have forgotten that Apple get about $4 per contract per month. Someone a few pages back said that there are 230,000 unlocked iPhones out there. Assuming those figures to be correct (they don't seem unreasonable and I don't have more accurate figures to hand) we can assume that Apple is losing (through lost revenue rather than actually losing) around $1million PER MONTH.
Yeah, they're not bothered by that at all are they?

 

[Cloudane]

edit: no longer relevant.

It would've been incredibly nasty, bully-like and really quite dumb (in terms of PR) to deliberately brick unlocked iPhones. However now that it's been clarified it makes sense - they're just refusing to repair damage done by hacked software or the process of unlocking, which is completely fair.