Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Actively Stop SIM Unlocking
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
question fear
macrumors 68020
Here's my theory: if anyone sued them or they were ordered by the laws of whatever country they sell the phone in to unlock it they would. With THEIR unlock. One that's probably only available when you fit the criteria (live in a certain place, have certain laws requiring them to do it, etc). They will have to conform to the laws of wherever they sell a product. IIRC don't they lower the volume output of ipods in Europe to meet certain EU standards?
However, even if they will legally unlock under a specific set of circumstances, that does not mean iphonesimfree or any of those are going to be left alone. My assumption is that they will continue to stop 3rd parties, as those are not manufacturer approved, and so it is within their right to change the firmware and relock those phones.
Does that make sense? I am basically just thinking that because something is legal to do doesn't mean everyone who releases a way to do it is in the right. So Apple could unlock phones if ordered to by law but still block iphonesimfree, etc, arguing it's not their method and they are in no way obligated to support them.
daneoni
macrumors G5
Are you absolutely sure about that cos this guy (and several others) who couldn't get Youtube to work on another cell network after unlocking their phones would beg to differ. He said AT&T is somehow tied to the Youtube app and requires some legwork to get it working again.
Herego the AT&T/Apple partnership yields Visual Voicemail/Youtube since those dont work right off the bat after an "unlock"
JGowan
macrumors 68000
You're disapointed in Apple? Why? For making good on their promise/contract to AT&T to keep the phone in the hands of only AT&T customers? I think it was a tough question to have to answer at a time that Steve wanted to completely keep everything upbeat and positive. I think his short/concise answer was perfect. He called it a cat & mouse Game. Cute and cuddly. Tom & Jerry. Purrfect.
The type of people who want to break the phone for another carrier doesn't care about Apple or AT&T. They care about themselves only. They don't want to play by the rules. And they are in the vast minority. The vast majority are the ones who'll buy the phone for an AT&T plan and not do a thing with it, but Apple has to keep up the impression that they plan on thwarting the breakers every time to discourage the temptation of people who normally wouldn't consider it to actually saying "word on the street is that a simple download of software will allow me to use the iPhone on any network I want." -- People, in general, need to be thinking "Crap, if I play with Apple's phone, it'll be a constant battle and the phone might not work in the morning". The average Joe just wants to buy the phone, use and know it's going to work, day and day out. They don't have to be playing some software game/war with Apple. Those people have too much time on their hands.
Why not just break it and never update again? As people have pointed out, Apple will continue to innovate in their software. Better ways of doing things, bug fixes, improvements and entirely new features and eventually games will land on the iPhone. The Breakers who can't ever update again are shooting themselves in the foot and deserve to be in this Catch-22. Ultimately though, they'll just be mad at Apple. They won't ever admit to themselves that they're wrong. Look at visual voicemail. One of the coolest features and people who've made the phone work with another network are totally missing out. "I don't really care about visual voicemail" -- soon it'll be "I don't really care about playing classic Nintendo games" or a myriad of other great new things that will be passing them by.
Won't all of the updates annoy customers if they're all about keeping people honest? Not really. Not if Apple sprinkles in improvements that the legitimate customers can see. Features in the foreground with the honesty-keeping stuff in the background. People will just say "Apple really cares about making this phone great."
Stella
macrumors G3
Apple don't want to play by the rules either... why should the consumer?
( In the UK, if you've paid for a phone outright, which you have done if you buy an iPhone then your entitled to have the phone unlocked. Apple are on tender hooks when observing local laws.)
I think you're being narrow-minded about this. There are a lot of people for whom a locked phone is really impossible. I am one of them. I travel between the U.S., Europe and Asia all the time and it would literally bankrupt me if I had to pay ATt roaming charges throughout the world. Do I care about Apple? Only as long as they provide what I want and need. Don't forget, I gave them $400 for a phone! I also stay in places for several weeks at a time, which makes it even more difficult. If ATT provided low-cost roaming, perhaps it would be better, but they don't.
Above all, the rules go against world trends: they're restrictive, punitive, greedy and authoritarian. Apple would have sold triple the number of phones by now if it had sold them unlocked, but opted to force its partners to provide poor plans because it couldn't afford to give apple its 40% share otherwise. Who suffers? The customer, nobody else. I'm a customer of Apple and my phone is an Apple phone. I paid full price for the phone and should therefore not be locked into a plan. The whole point of locking is for carriers to make back the money (and much more) that they put out when providing a new phone withouit a fee. I think very soon this whole locking business will be banned anyway and that will solve the issue once and for all.
Absolutely agreed. Luckily, the EU is not as scared of limiting the power of larger corporations a and protecting the consumer as in the U.S. Apple's practices will not last for long there. First Microsoft's defeat, next is itunes and Apple....
JGowan
macrumors 68000
I'm narrow-minded? Good. Fine.
My opinion: It's a phone. PERIOD. If it doesn't work for you then get another one. This is the perfect example of the phrase "people want to have their cake and it too". You want it both ways even if you have to go into some software war to do it. Stupid if you ask me.
Shadowfax,
The problem is Apple HAS TO afford to stay ahead of the hackers. They have to break the unlocks. They are contractually obligated to ATT to keep the phones exclusive, they not ATT are the only ones who can achieve this, ATT is going to be all over them to do it and keep it done.
So, it's a contract they have no choice but to meet the terms of, so I support their actions to do that. But I doubt there's much if anything contractually obligating to keep native apps off the iPhone -- except perhaps anything that uses ATT's network. But an iTunes remote control over Wi-Fi? A native-app to-do list? ATT is only care about this to the point that messy non-network native apps might crash the iPhone, cause software conflicts, etc. And their not going to care much because you're still in a contract with them whether your iPhone works well or not.
The unfortunate outcome for someone like you, someone who has hacked for non-native apps but is with ATT and has not unlocked, is Apple is not going to care. In order to break the unlocks, which they have to do by contract, they are going to lock that thing down hard. Which means you get left out in the cold. In fact, before the slew of unlocks hit, especially the GUI-based, anyone-can-use-no-terminal-commands-required anySIM, Apple's *stated* policy, I think Jowsiak (sp?) said it, was that as far native 3rd party apps, Apple would not support them but they would not intentionally break them; in other words, they would try to co-exist with hobbyists as best they could without going out of their way to keep native apps stable. As of London Tuesday, the obvious implied policy is: we will crush anything native. That sucks for you, since all you want is to put some different software on your iPhone, but you accepted the terms of the ATT exclusivity deal, you're in a contract, you pay your bills, you're harmless except perhaps to yourself when you brick your iPhone.
So, here's my suggestion: The iPhone hacker community, the native apps people, should band together and as a group take a formal stance against the unlockers. Go after them. It's the unlockers that have caused the sea change in policy toward potentially messy but otherwise harmless native apps. (In my opinion, it's the release of anySIM and it's more difficult to use precursors that have held up the current firmware update; from the looks of the fact Jobs leaked all the new features of the new firmware in Lond, he full well expected that firmware to be out by his London announcement, but then they had to backtrack to try and break grand scale, free unlock distribution.) The unlockers are your problem. Go after them. Shut them down and Apple no longer has cause to keep the iPhone so tightly locked up.
The problem is Apple HAS TO afford to stay ahead of the hackers. They have to break the unlocks. They are contractually obligated to ATT to keep the phones exclusive, they not ATT are the only ones who can achieve this, ATT is going to be all over them to do it and keep it done.
So, it's a contract they have no choice but to meet the terms of, so I support their actions to do that. But I doubt there's much if anything contractually obligating to keep native apps off the iPhone -- except perhaps anything that uses ATT's network. But an iTunes remote control over Wi-Fi? A native-app to-do list? ATT is only care about this to the point that messy non-network native apps might crash the iPhone, cause software conflicts, etc. And their not going to care much because you're still in a contract with them whether your iPhone works well or not.
The unfortunate outcome for someone like you, someone who has hacked for non-native apps but is with ATT and has not unlocked, is Apple is not going to care. In order to break the unlocks, which they have to do by contract, they are going to lock that thing down hard. Which means you get left out in the cold. In fact, before the slew of unlocks hit, especially the GUI-based, anyone-can-use-no-terminal-commands-required anySIM, Apple's *stated* policy, I think Jowsiak (sp?) said it, was that as far native 3rd party apps, Apple would not support them but they would not intentionally break them; in other words, they would try to co-exist with hobbyists as best they could without going out of their way to keep native apps stable. As of London Tuesday, the obvious implied policy is: we will crush anything native. That sucks for you, since all you want is to put some different software on your iPhone, but you accepted the terms of the ATT exclusivity deal, you're in a contract, you pay your bills, you're harmless except perhaps to yourself when you brick your iPhone.
So, here's my suggestion: The iPhone hacker community, the native apps people, should band together and as a group take a formal stance against the unlockers. Go after them. It's the unlockers that have caused the sea change in policy toward potentially messy but otherwise harmless native apps. (In my opinion, it's the release of anySIM and it's more difficult to use precursors that have held up the current firmware update; from the looks of the fact Jobs leaked all the new features of the new firmware in Lond, he full well expected that firmware to be out by his London announcement, but then they had to backtrack to try and break grand scale, free unlock distribution.) The unlockers are your problem. Go after them. Shut them down and Apple no longer has cause to keep the iPhone so tightly locked up.
edesignuk
Moderator emeritus
sanford. what a load of nonsense. apple have locked it down because apple are apple, they know best, and they don't want anyone's home brew apps invading their carefully crafted iPhone interface.
SIM unlockers have nothing to do with it.
Fight the good fight, keep that bad boy unlocked with every firmware update apple can muster!
SIM unlockers have nothing to do with it.
Fight the good fight, keep that bad boy unlocked with every firmware update apple can muster!
sanford, I wonder how his anti-unlocking stance is going to hold up in the UK, where by law phones are required to be sold unlocked.
Empty rhetoric used to alleviate AT&T. Nothing more. Especially now that they've got their other carriers picked out worldwide I think they will be worrying about ATT less and less.
Empty rhetoric used to alleviate AT&T. Nothing more. Especially now that they've got their other carriers picked out worldwide I think they will be worrying about ATT less and less.
Yes, of course it's just a phone and I don't NEED to use it. My only desire is to be able to do what I want with the phone I paid a lot of money for. If a contract with ATT for two years were the only requirement, I'd say yes and use them. However, it's not enough for them to get my regular monthly fees - they also won't allow me to put in a sim card for when I travel abroad. That means that in order to reach me, my friends abroad have to dial a U.S. number and pay for that, AND I have to pay for the roaming. For those that travel, and whose bills are not paid for as a business expense, this is an impossible situation.
I want FREEDOM and fair business practices.
I don't know that your statement is not true, but I know what Apple *said* about third-party native apps, and I know up to firmware 1.0.2 they didn't seem to be going to great trouble to lock the iPhone up tight.
Of course they are going to want to keep their design as they intended it, but I still contend and will not be swayed that is the unlocking that has caused the full-force work on locking everyone out of the iPhone, period.
Please let me know if I'm correct in saying that, as long as I don't update iTunes and install the latest iPhone update, I'm in the clear with my unlocked phone?
Or does iTunes or the iPhone force the update by limiting the use of the program syncing until it's preformed???
Thanks in advance.
Or does iTunes or the iPhone force the update by limiting the use of the program syncing until it's preformed???
Thanks in advance.
That's true, sort of. From the law I've read, phones sold on contracts with carriers may be locked to the carrier in the UK, but after the customer has fulfilled the contract for six months, the carrier is required by law to unlock it. But that doesn't terminate the contract; you still have to pay it out for its original length. Also, apparently, it's a pain to get the carriers to unlock, and they are allowed to charge a fee for it. So for most people early unlocking has no particular financial advantage, although it will have advantage for people in the UK who travel abroad a lot. After six months, they can pay for the unlock, use their contracts in the UK, but use less expensive local service when abroad with a local carrier's SIM.
Well, you'll never read this but it's worth responding to. What don't you get about this? The terms of iPhone ownership include a phone locked to a contract with a specific carrier. Accept those terms or don't. The ethical route to taking a stand against such terms is *not to buy the product and not to support the company with your money*. It is not to provide profit for the company, anyway, and think you don't have to accept the terms that have been set forth. Sorry. Your ethics are awash in self-justification of want, want, want. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the damn thing. There are plenty of competitors with more liberal policies just waiting for your money.
You're absolutely correct, just make sure that you ensure auto update is off in ITunes and then your iphone won't update unless you voluntarily choose "check for updates". You can sync as much as you want. The best way to connect your phone, if you want my advice, would be to make sure your net connection is off and then plug it in.
There is no auto-update in iTunes. Only auto-sync, which doesn't auto-update. If you've set to automatically check for updates and it finds one, it still requires authorization from the user to perform the update -- at least in the Mac version of iTunes.
SIM cards can identify themselves via the iPhone, I'm sure. iTunes could be modified to lock any iPhone sync'ed, or even just connected to the computer, with a non-approved carrier SIM installed. Being off network won't help with that. But as far as I know the current version of iTunes won't do this.
Also, carriers can determine what equipment you're using on their networks. If to avoid legal wrangles with exclusive carriers other carriers decide to prohibit iPhones operating natively on their network, if they identify an iPhone on their network using one of their own SIMs, they can kill your SIM any time they please.
Stella
macrumors G3
But as you know, the iPhone isn't sold on a contract. You buy the iPhone seperately, and outright. So, how are Apple going to justify themselves?
Gilfanon
macrumors member
I'm a bit mystified by the Apple community. The lock is in place so that Apple could negotiate it's 40% revenue cut (Steve to carriers- "I'll give you exclusivity on the new must-have phone, you just have to give me a 40% cut"). It's a policy that must have come straight from the top, and yet I see posts suggesting that "Steve is just paying lip service to O2 and AT&T about stopping the hacks". If he is, then he's a pretty rubbish CEO- how many other CEOs would be happy to lose the revenue stream from a product that's been in development for years in the spirit of free and open enterprise and "sticking it to those greedy carriers".
Personally, I don't think the tariffs are that bad- people are largely comparing apples and oranges (i.e. tariffs without free wifi and unlimited data to the iPhone tariff). But I'm consistently surprised at people who are surprised that Apple might try and stop the hackers- people who switch SIMs are, in effect, destroying Apple's revenue stream. That much is true regardless of how distasteful you find Steve's exclusive deals- of course Apple are going to move to stop this, they'd be throwing money down the drain if they didn't...
Personally, I don't think the tariffs are that bad- people are largely comparing apples and oranges (i.e. tariffs without free wifi and unlimited data to the iPhone tariff). But I'm consistently surprised at people who are surprised that Apple might try and stop the hackers- people who switch SIMs are, in effect, destroying Apple's revenue stream. That much is true regardless of how distasteful you find Steve's exclusive deals- of course Apple are going to move to stop this, they'd be throwing money down the drain if they didn't...
I agree, but the other side of it is that Apple is losing most likely a tremendous number of hardware sales through their restrictions. Those don't represent a continuous stream of revenue the way subscriptions do, but certainly it could amount to a massive amount of income from hardware sales if the iphone weren't locked?
Am I surprised? No, of course not. But I am disappointed that Apple would go against the trend of consumer choice, flexibility and global mobility. Opening it up would, in the long run, only lead to more business and more profit for Apple. Restricting WILL, I believe, backfire in the long run. Especially in Europe.
I have an iPhone and it's unloacked and the reason is simple - I live in Canada. I did the Windows/Blackberry thing for a long time and last year made the move to a Mac. It has been a whole new computing experience and a very welcome change. When the iPhone was announced I was ecstatic - an Apple device to replace the Blackberry! But no iPhone for Canada......
When it comes to GSM in Canada, there is only one game in town - Rogers and they have shown absolutely no indication that they are planning to release it in Canada so I got one (thanks SC) and unlocked it. It has been everything the Mac switch was and there is one huge benefit to me. Data rates in Canada are hugely expensive so the WiFi capability of the iPhone is a major benefit to me. My data usage has gone down about 75% since I started using the iPhone mainly because I can check my email at the office when away from my desk and at the airport where there is a hotspot ( I work in airline security so I spend about 30% of my time at the airport). Also at home I can do a quick check of email without having to fire up my computer.
So while I have an unlocked iPhone, it is not because I am trying to screw Apple or AT&T or anyone else. If and when Rogers releases the iPhone I will be first in line, but until then I will use it unlocked. The rotten part is with Apple actively trying to stop the unlocks, I can't get the new features and my big question is will leopard be a problem (i.e. will I "have" to update the firmware for it to talk to my Mac).
The iPhone is not just a phone to me, it is a better way to communicate just as the Mac is a better way to compute.
So I'm unlocked and "feature-locked" until Rogers gets off their asses and/or Apple realizes the world doesn't end at the 48th parallel.........
When it comes to GSM in Canada, there is only one game in town - Rogers and they have shown absolutely no indication that they are planning to release it in Canada so I got one (thanks SC) and unlocked it. It has been everything the Mac switch was and there is one huge benefit to me. Data rates in Canada are hugely expensive so the WiFi capability of the iPhone is a major benefit to me. My data usage has gone down about 75% since I started using the iPhone mainly because I can check my email at the office when away from my desk and at the airport where there is a hotspot ( I work in airline security so I spend about 30% of my time at the airport). Also at home I can do a quick check of email without having to fire up my computer.
So while I have an unlocked iPhone, it is not because I am trying to screw Apple or AT&T or anyone else. If and when Rogers releases the iPhone I will be first in line, but until then I will use it unlocked. The rotten part is with Apple actively trying to stop the unlocks, I can't get the new features and my big question is will leopard be a problem (i.e. will I "have" to update the firmware for it to talk to my Mac).
The iPhone is not just a phone to me, it is a better way to communicate just as the Mac is a better way to compute.
So I'm unlocked and "feature-locked" until Rogers gets off their asses and/or Apple realizes the world doesn't end at the 48th parallel.........