Apple to Actively Stop SIM Unlocking

[PDE]

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.........

And there are LOTS of people like you. I will be moving back to Europe in the Spring to a country with no iphone sales and I'll be in the same situation. I hope that Apple at the very least won't restrict the syncing with itunes. I guess as long as we don't update itunes we'll be fine, but as you said, what happens when leopard comes out? Will they force us to update? I hope not. And let's hope the world's iphone hackers see this all as a challenge.

Also, for those who talk about unlockers trying to screw ATT or Apple - what BS! the reason this is all happening is because Apple and ATT want to squeeze every drop of money out of each consumer and give as little as possible. We're just defending ourselves!

 

[sanford]

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?

You have to sign up on contract if you want to use it for anything more than a sculpture. You have to sign up on contract to activate.

Anyway, I didn't say that it was fair or that people would like it; I only mean I'm sure Apple will comply fully with UK law while keeping each UK iPhone sold locked to O2 as long possible. They only *must* justify themselves to the law; justifying themselves to customers is at their option.

 

[PDE]

You have to sign up on contract if you want to use it for anything more than a sculpture. You have to sign up on contract to activate.

Anyway, I didn't say that it was fair or that people would like it; I only mean I'm sure Apple will comply fully with UK law while keeping each UK iPhone sold locked to O2 as long possible. They only *must* justify themselves to the law; justifying themselves to customers is at their option.

True, but justifying themselves to customers is the basis for avoiding long-terms problems with the law. And consumer protection is taken much more seriously in the EU.

 

[sanford]

And there are LOTS of people like you. I will be moving back to Europe in the Spring to a country with no iphone sales and I'll be in the same situation. I hope that Apple at the very least won't restrict the syncing with itunes. I guess as long as we don't update itunes we'll be fine, but as you said, what happens when leopard comes out? Will they force us to update? I hope not. And let's hope the world's iphone hackers see this all as a challenge.

Also, for those who talk about unlockers trying to screw ATT or Apple - what BS! the reason this is all happening is because Apple and ATT want to squeeze every drop of money out of each consumer and give as little as possible. We're just defending ourselves!

Of course they're trying to squeeze every drop of money out of you they can. Defending yourselves against Apple and ATT dipping into your wallet is *not buying an iPhone*. But if you accept the terms of the deal by buying an iPhone, you should live with consequences of your decision.

As for the Canadian argument, you have things in Canada I can't get here in the States. How terribly unfair. I have should have carte blanche to disassemble and destroy whatever I wish so that I may get those things you have that I can't get here.

 

[sanford]

True, but justifying themselves to customers is the basis for avoiding long-terms problems with the law. And consumer protection is taken much more seriously in the EU.

Okay, this is a philosophical discussion, not a point of law discussion. In that case, I have no clue how they'll defend themselves to the customers. My guess is they just won't, more or less; and if that has ramifications with EU law down the road, they'll deal with that then.

 

[PDE]

Of course they're trying to squeeze every drop of money out of you they can. Defending yourselves against Apple and ATT dipping into your wallet is *not buying an iPhone*. But if you accept the terms of the deal by buying an iPhone, you should live with consequences of your decision.

As for the Canadian argument, you have things in Canada I can't get here in the States. How terribly unfair. I have should have carte blanche to disassemble and destroy whatever I wish so that I may get those things you have that I can't get here.

Ultimately, of course you're right. Luckily, I don't have to abide by ATT or Apple rules and I can use my iphone unlocked and freely on all GSM networks wherever I go. I do hope that continues, but if doesn't I'll live with that too.

 

[Gilfanon]

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.

Hey, I'm not defending Apple's locking policy in the slightest- I don't buy the visual voicemail justification (I think most people would pass on it if they could have their carrier of choice), I think it's purely about making as much money as they can off this thing. I'm just saying that a post goes up saying "Apple to actively try and stop hacks" and people respond "WHAT?!? Apple you swines!". What do people expect? Apple want to protect their revenue...

Now if you're asking about the exclusivity agreements that's another question entirely. Personally I'm surprised there haven't been more Bill Gates/Steve Jobs comparisons on these boards- if MS tried the kind of squeeze Steve's been putting on Mobile carriers it'd be "MS the evil empire" all over again, but SJ still seems to have retained at least part of his halo. I'm disappointed too, but only because Apple seems to be losing it's geek underdog glow and becoming a bit more hard-edged and corporate... As a result, when Rogers refuse to share revenue with Apple, SJ decides Canadians don't get the iPhone. To quote Kanye West- "Steve Jobs doesn't care about Canadian people"- he cares about profit...

 

[zwiggles1]

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.........

Couldn't have said it better myself.
I keep on hearing that the data rates are the prime reason that it hasn't already been launched, plus Rogers is focusing all their resources on 3G. It maybe in line for the Jan/Feb launch w/ 3G...

 

[jb510]

Drivel...

#1 You do NOT have some basic human right to own an iPhone.

#2 You bought the phone knowing the rules for it's use.

Many of you living or roaming outside the US sound like you think you have a right to have and use and iPhone as you see fit and somehow Apple is violating that right... you therefore take a stand as if you are conscientiously objecting to that violation. There are other phones that suit your needs, buy those.

It's not entirely accurate to say the phone is not subsidize. Apple undoubtedly is counting on the revenue from ATT Wireless, and therefore is selling the phone for less than they would if they didn't expect that revenue. It may not be subsidized as much or in the same fashion as other phones, but it is subsidized.

That said, I'm not a fan of "Terms of Service" or "License Agreements" etc... I'd like to live in a world where when we buy a product it is ours to do whatever we like with.

I would prefer to see Apple at least offer an unlocked phone for sale at a higher price, or AT&T step up and offer to unlock the phone or release you from the contract for some monetary compensation. This isn't just an Apple thing and there has been legislation floating in congress in the last year to do away with contracts and locked phones. If you seriously want to change things get involved in changing the laws.

 

[gkarris]

No ulocked iPhones for you, Europe.

Oh, and there is NO iPod Touch screen problem...

Apple is starting to IMPLODE....

Sony and Dell welcomes you....

 

[Luveno]

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"

We were watching YouTube videos in a diner in Nova Scotia this week, over wireless and via the Rogers network (I believe.) YouTube isn't tied to ATT.

 

[ogee]

It maybe in line for the Jan/Feb launch w/ 3G...

Except there is no 3G launch in Jan/Feb. When asked specifically about 3G at the UK O2 launch Jobo said perhaps later next year, not early


10:16 - Steve gets back on stage for Q&A. We ask: Why not 3G networks?

Steve: "The 3G chipsets are real power hogs. Handset battery life cuts power to 2-3 hours." Yeah yeah, we've heard it before. "Our phone has a talk time of 8 hours and that's really important when you want to use your phone for internet and music. 3G needs to get back up to 5+ hours, something we think well see later next year. ... WiFi is way faster than any 3G network. Energy efficient EDGE with better, faster WiFi. That's why we chose it."

 

[Stella]

The revenue sharing is extra revenue for Apple. There is no proof one way or another that this revenue sharing is actively subsisdizing the cost of the iPhone.

It's not entirely accurate to say the phone is not subsidize. Apple undoubtedly is counting on the revenue from ATT Wireless, and therefore is selling the phone for less than they would if they didn't expect that revenue. It may not be subsidized as much or in the same fashion as other phones, but it is subsidized.

 

[JGowan]

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.

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.

Then the iPhone is not for you. According to you, Apple and AT&T practice unfair business and the iPhone doesn't provide you the freedom you need. Who needs 'em?! Again, go somewhere else.

What you fail to see or acknowledge is that Apple and AT&T have an arrangement to benefit them and THEIR customers. They have a partnership. They have invited YOU to be their partner, one with a contract that binds you to them (AND THEIR TERMS) for 2 years. If you are not willing to be subject to their terms and conditions, don't sign on the bottom line. It's either that, or buy one, reneg on the AT&T plan inside of 14 days (or whatever it is) and then use some internet software to break your phone to work with some other carrier. And then, never update your phone again and miss out on really great features that Apple is sure to bring to the phone over the next 4.5 years.

You feel that $400 gets you the right to have the phone and to use it any way you want. It doesn't. I gives the right to use it they way that Apple and AT&T stipulate. It's a shame that the phone doesn't give you, an international traveler, the ability to travel and keep in contact with your family and friends. Apparently, it is a service you've grown accustomed to and, again apparently, at an affordable price.

I would suggest staying with the phone company and device that have served you well.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

One has to wonder how defensible a position that is, considering unlocking is not illegal, and in fact it would seem unlocked phones are the typical M.O. of the European cell phone telecom industry.

Ok, Steve, how are you going to fight that, exactly?

I think the quote really is just referring to the contract with AT&T. It's well known that exclusivity is one of the things that AT&T asked for and got, so it certainly must be written in the contract they made with Apple.

In that sense, it *is* Apple's "job" to take all reasonable steps to keep the iPhone locked at least for the period of the contract with AT&T.

What will be interesting is the exact wording of the same parts of the contracts with European providers given that unlocking is far more common over there and has already been firmly established as a legal and normal thing to do.

 

[sanford]

Highly rational.

I don't like all this exclusivity and contractual requirements business that is escalating, especially in the States, but also elsewhere. I think ultimately these things restrict free trade, the idea that a manufacturer makes a product, sells it wholesale to a retailer, and I can buy it wherever I wish at the best price on offer, not fewer features or these "bonus tracks" -- read, acoustic versions with low production values -- instead of those "bonus tracks."

BUT! But the terms of owning an iPhone are quite clear and if you buy an iPhone you accept those terms. So buy an iPhone if it is available to you under the terms and abide by those terms, or don't buy an iPhone if it is not available under the terms in your area or you don't like the terms.

In the States at least, you know, Apple could just refuse to sell you an iPhone, period. About the only reason a retailer can't refuse to sell something to someone is if they make that decision based on race, gender or religious affiliation. That's the law in States. You could walk into an Apple Store cash in hand fully prepared to sign up with ATT for the full contract and they could just say, No, don't like the looks of you, not selling you one.

#1 You do NOT have some basic human right to own an iPhone.

#2 You bought the phone knowing the rules for it's use.

Many of you living or roaming outside the US sound like you think you have a right to have and use and iPhone as you see fit and somehow Apple is violating that right... you therefore take a stand as if you are conscientiously objecting to that violation. There are other phones that suit your needs, buy those.

It's not entirely accurate to say the phone is not subsidize. Apple undoubtedly is counting on the revenue from ATT Wireless, and therefore is selling the phone for less than they would if they didn't expect that revenue. It may not be subsidized as much or in the same fashion as other phones, but it is subsidized.

That said, I'm not a fan of "Terms of Service" or "License Agreements" etc... I'd like to live in a world where when we buy a product it is ours to do whatever we like with.

I would prefer to see Apple at least offer an unlocked phone for sale at a higher price, or AT&T step up and offer to unlock the phone or release you from the contract for some monetary compensation. This isn't just an Apple thing and there has been legislation floating in congress in the last year to do away with contracts and locked phones. If you seriously want to change things get involved in changing the laws.

 

[gkarris]

I think the quote really is just referring to the contract with AT&T. It's well known that exclusivity is one of the things that AT&T asked for and got, so it certainly must be written in the contract they made with Apple.

In that sense, it *is* Apple's "job" to take all reasonable steps to keep the iPhone locked at least for the period of the contract with AT&T.

What will be interesting is the exact wording of the same parts of the contracts with European providers given that unlocking is far more common over there and has already been firmly established as a legal and normal thing to do.

Nicely put, but not reality.

Just like Apple changed the computing world and the music player world, Steve is out to change the mobile phone world.

His quote makes it clear that, like OS X on Macs, iPhones will remained locked... enjoy...

 

[footandmaff]

But if you accept the terms of the deal by buying an iPhone, you should live with consequences of your decision.

You're not technically correct saying that you accept the terms by purchasing the iPhone because the user only accepts the terms of service when they activate the phone through AT&T, O2 etc via iTunes. If, as many users have, negate the activation process using the bypass method then surely they also negate the terms of service...?

 

[ScottDrummer]

No ulocked iPhones for you, Europe.

Oh, and there is NO iPod Touch screen problem...

Apple is starting to IMPLODE....

Sony and Dell welcomes you....

ive an unlocked iPhone in the UK, i couldnt give a crap whether im breaking licence terms or agreement, i wanted the product, i took the decision buy it and unlock it,whether I have the right or not, you dont have a right to do many things in life, but you do them.
i wish these people who are stuck on their at&t contracts stop whining about other people who have unlocked and not having the right to do so.
you forget that on at&t and o2, if you fail a credit check you can go on a payg contract, therefore this "subsidised" payment surely wouldnt exist.

 

[alljunks]

Apple sells more iphone if it comes unlock!!!

 

[sanford]

You're not technically correct saying that you accept the terms by purchasing the iPhone because the user only accepts the terms of service when they activate the phone through AT&T, O2 etc via iTunes. If, as many users have, negate the activation process using the bypass method then surely they also negate the terms of service...?

Hmm. I just skimmed the iPhone SLA. It's a gray area, as far as I can tell, whether or not you accept the terms to sign up on contract with a specific carrier just by buying the iPhone. I think you're right, you probably don't accept terms by mere purchase. But devising an unlock or installing the unlock does almost certainly violate the SLA.

So, I revise my statement: You are most likely quite free to buy an iPhone without accepting the contract terms. You can hang it on the wall. Use it as a coaster. Whatever. But activating it by any other means than the exclusive carrier method, or activating it and then installing software that breaks the lock to the exclusive carrier, that violates the SLA, so that you may not do.

 

[sanford]

Apple sells more iphone if it comes unlock!!!

Yeah, I'm sure they considered that. But they also surely discovered that with the right terms of a contractual partnership with an exclusive carrier they'd make more money selling fewer phones.

 

[0098386]

That's okay, I live in the UK

 

[sanford]

Travel A Lot

What I don't get is the "I travel abroad a lot" argument for unlocking.

First of all, AT&T does offer an international roaming plan can you switch on and off, paying for it only when you are going to be out of the country. It's not super cheap, but it's a whole lot less expensive than paying full international roaming rates without the plan.

And for maybe $25 you can get a legitimately unlocked GSM world phone -- I think there must be three of them lying around my house right now, either weren't carrier locked in the first place or can be legitimately unlocked as they are post-contract. When the new firmware is released, it has an option to turn off EDGE roaming, so you can still use Wi-Fi without fear of roaming onto international EDGE networks. Don't answer your iPhone if it rings. Pick up a local SIM wherever you are and pay local rates for your cheap-o "travel phone". It's not like you get to keep your current phone number using a local SIM, anyway: you have to tell people who need to call you the local number that gets assigned to your local SIM.

Why is this such a big deal? You can still use everything but the actual phone features of your iPhone this way, and it's not like you'll be missing much because even if the phone were unlocked and it was perfectly permissible to drop in a local SIM when traveling abroad, you're not going to have your usual number, your usual voice-mail box, or any of the features that depend on specific carrier support.

 

[sanford]

ive an unlocked iPhone in the UK, i couldnt give a crap whether im breaking licence terms or agreement, i wanted the product, i took the decision buy it and unlock it,whether I have the right or not, you dont have a right to do many things in life, but you do them.
i wish these people who are stuck on their at&t contracts stop whining about other people who have unlocked and not having the right to do so.
you forget that on at&t and o2, if you fail a credit check you can go on a payg contract, therefore this "subsidised" payment surely wouldnt exist.

Scott,

It doesn't bother me at all that I chose to sign a contract and you didn't have to. The only thing that bugs me is that I really think all this unlocking is holding up the works as far as timely feature updates, and since I paid for my iPhone, too, and I'd like to get the feature enhancements, your decision to violate the license is affecting me, where as my decision to abide by the license doesn't affect you at all.