Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't think its Apple's idea of wanting to keep the phone unlocked. More like ATT breathing down Steve's back because they're the one's who have the most to lose if lets say the iPhone is unlocked. Apple would make more money selling iPhones than the revenue sharing from ATT I would assume. So it is in Apple's interest to get as many iPhones out there as possible.
man even steve jobs is under restriction that sucks for man with power, you just cant do anything even unlock a phone :(
 
Apple would make more money selling iPhones than the revenue sharing from ATT I would assume. So it is in Apple's interest to get as many iPhones out there as possible.

Hmm, I don't know about that. Maybe if they had 3G, but the iPhone wouldn't have its market all that much extended in the US if it were available for any carrier at this point. It's just speculation, but I think Apple is making a KILLING off revenue sharing from plans, and I don't think they would make more if they were selling the iPhone unlocked without any revenue sharing for them. Plus they are control freaks about user experience, so they want to make sure that you are on the network that supports their phone properly.
 
This will be very strange seeing that i've NEVER owned a locked phone in my life. How unnatural...sigh all these nonsense just to own one stupid phone.
 
I don't think its Apple's idea of wanting to keep the phone unlocked. More like ATT breathing down Steve's back because they're the one's who have the most to lose if lets say the iPhone is unlocked. Apple would make more money selling iPhones than the revenue sharing from ATT I would assume. So it is in Apple's interest to get as many iPhones out there as possible.
No, it isn't. If it was, why did they partner up with AT&T in the first place ? They could have just started selling SIM-lock free iPhones and let users get their own SIM from whatever provider. Like every other phone manufacturer does.
 
No, it isn't. If it was, why did they partner up with AT&T in the first place ? They could have just started selling SIM-lock free iPhones and let users get their own SIM from whatever provider. Like every other phone manufacturer does.

Visual Voicemail/Youtube
 
Or... If Apple really wanted to keep the upper-hand, they could always disable your phone upon the next sync/charge.
Well, no, they can't do that.

They can release new firmware which breaks the unlocking hack. They can blacklist the IMEI (preventing you from making calls or using data networks), they can change the contract's terms and then seek damages in court from the account holders who agree to the modified terms. They can update iTunes so that it refuses to recognize or sync with an unlocked iPhone.

They can't, however, just brick the device for the hell of it.
 
Does anyone know whether you'd be able to use an existing O2 sim card with a different tariff without having to go through the unlocking procedure, just completing the fake activation to get the phone to work initially? I've got no problem with sticking with O2 but I just want to avoid those horrendous iPhone tariffs.
 
I'm sure their firmware upgrades may well break the unlock.

However, the hard work has been done. The hackers know how it works. They have a process to follow. I really don't think it's anything to worry about.

Those with unlocked phones can just wait a little bit before updating to the latest firmware, while anySIM prepare an updated version of their app to counter Apples changes.

Apple will never win at this game. Microsoft have been trying to stop people using Windows without a legitimate licence for how many years, spent how much money? Have they ever managed to beat the hackers? **** no. Same goes for Apple with the relocking of phone with firmware updates. They're simply wasting their time and resources.
 
Just Steves RDF to keep the corps happy...they aren't trying that hard.

That's what I thought, I mean O2 seem to be getting pretty shafted on this deal and with the release of the iTouch so I think this was really more of a lip service announcement (at least I hope)
 
What else is the guy suppose to say? He's not going to be introducing O2 as the UK carrier and indicate publicly that he doesn't care about unlocking the baby. But those are just words, and they know this will always be a loosing battle.
 
Apple will never win at this game. Microsoft have been trying to stop people using Windows without a legitimate licence for how many years, spent how much money? Have they ever managed to beat the hackers? **** no. Same goes for Apple with the relocking of phone with firmware updates. They're simply wasting their time and resources.

Amen. It's my hope that this is all empty rhetoric. I for one would love to get the iPhone but will never do so until it's unlocked. Rhetoric or not, I'm disappointed in Apple.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Rogers = AT & T

Not anymore. Apparently the old ATT Wireless owned a stake in Rogers for a while but it doesn't look like they still do, at least according to Wikipedia. Remember, old ATT Wireless was oddly separate from regular ATT, and then it got gobbled up by Cingular. Who then merged back into ATT. Just for the confusion factor. :-D

Rogers Corporation
 
I'm also curious about how Apple will deal with U.K. laws on unlocking. As I understand it, in the UK, mobile phone service providers must unlock a phone if the customer requests it, albeit for a small fee. Does anybody know the details of the law?
 
Not anymore. Apparently the old ATT Wireless owned a stake in Rogers for a while but it doesn't look like they still do, at least according to Wikipedia. Remember, old ATT Wireless was oddly separate from regular ATT, and then it got gobbled up by Cingular. Who then merged back into ATT. Just for the confusion factor. :-D

Rogers Corporation

Wow, I just always assumed AT&T wireless was AT&T... thanks for the info
 
Well, no, they can't do that.

They can release new firmware which breaks the unlocking hack. They can blacklist the IMEI (preventing you from making calls or using data networks), they can change the contract's terms and then seek damages in court from the account holders who agree to the modified terms. They can update iTunes so that it refuses to recognize or sync with an unlocked iPhone.

They can't, however, just brick the device for the hell of it.


But what about those who buy a phone and cancel their contracts with ATT but keep the phone? Surely, they are still apple customers and should be allowed to sync with itunes?

I don't know the law on these things, but given that the phone is not subsidised I feel there must be restrictions on how these two rogue companies (Apple and ATT) do business?
 
Yeah i read that youtube is somehow tied to AT&T and those who did the unlocking had to do some reverse engineering to get it to work on other networks

NO. YouTube has nothing to do whatsoever with the baseband firmware. In fact, you can have youtube working on a locked iPhone with NO SIM card inside.
 
Apple CANNOT afford to stay ahead of the hackers. It took them awhile to hack it after it was released, but now that people have a handle on the phone, now that tools are available on the phone for hacking--basic programs like ssh, etc., it will take less than a week for a company with some money, or for that matter, a bunch of nerds with code.google.com, to workaround their stuff. Just wait for it on the ringtones. They'll have a new hack before next monday, and that's not even relevant--iToner, which doesn't cost all that much money, still works, so they haven't broken custom ringtones completely even with 7.4.2. And regular, honest users are going to start getting really, really annoyed with constant updates that do nothing but break hacks they aren't using.

If apple updated iTunes to brick your iPhone, someone would hack iTunes so that it didn't do that--e.g., denying it a network connection to phone home to apple to check out the phone. But that's not even the issue--that kind of crap is just BOLLOCKS to regular users who aren't hacking, or--users who are hacking (like me) but don't have their phones unlocked or anything... how will they tell the difference?

It's a hopeless battle against the times. Here we are in a time of pluralism, communication, globalisation, easy-travel and general fluidity of circumstances and Apple - the company that purports to be different - is fighting hard to restrict everything we do with their products. I call it BS and I'm happy to support any hacking effort that will teach them a lesson. I travel/move around a lot (between continents) and I know a lot of people who do and who don't live in one place for more than a year (so 2-year contracts don't work) and who travel frequently all over the world (so roaming fees are not reasonable or feasible). That's the way things are now and Apple just doesn't get it. People also don't like to be told what to do with their expensive equipment. I think this will backlash and Apple will lose out if it continues to push it too far. The latest UK deal is just one example of Apple's arrogance and greed.

I also think that it's just a matter of time before it becomes illegal to lock phones that have not be subsidised by the carrier.
 
Since the customer:
1. Pays for the full price of the phone
2. Don't sign a contract with a carrier at the time of iPhone purchase, like subsisized phones

The customer has the right to go with any carrier they wish.

Apple will have to like it and lump it!
 
btw... by law, all phone in the UK must be unlocked...

You lucky UK people....

False.

However, at the end of the contract when the phone subsisdy has been paid back, the carrier must unlock the phone at the customers request.
 
False.

However, at the end of the contract when the phone subsisdy has been paid back, the carrier must unlock the phone at the customers request.

But there is no subsidy with the iphone...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.